Journal of Cuneiform Studies (JCS 56) 2004

EXIT Asimbabbar? THE READING OF dA†/dili-ím-barbar Bendt Alster University of Copenhagen In a recently published study ...

Author: Piotr Michalowski

55 downloads 1136 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

EXIT Asimbabbar? THE READING OF dA†/dili-ím-barbar Bendt Alster University of Copenhagen

In a recently published study Å. W. Sjöberg reads the well-known name or epithet Asimbabbar, often used of the moon good Nanna-Suen, as Dilimbabbar (Sjöberg 2003: 534, n. 11). 1 This comes as a surprise, because it is contrary to the traditional reading dás-ím-babbar, con˜rmed by the same author in an earlier work, and, with a few exceptions, accepted almost everywhere in the scholarly literature. For a long time, however, I have been convinced that the correct reading should be ddili-ím-babbar. Since Sjöberg oˆered the reading without a full explanation, the following attempt to state the main justi˜cations for the old and the new readings may be useful.2 The justi˜cation for reading Asimbabbar (dasím-bar6-bar6) was provided by Sjöberg (1960: 149, n. 2) as follows: an alleged syllabic writing ás for as, in CT 36, pl. 26 (BM 96706), l. 15, was said to

con˜rm the reading as. The reading ás has, however, been ruled out according to a new collation by W. G. Lambert.3 In addition, a gloss im written over ím in the god list CT 24, 18 i 17 (An = Anum III 26, now available as Litke 1968: 119), A†-ímimbabbar = dnam-[ra-at-si-it], provides the reading ím for the sign DU-sessig, which could otherwise be read as GIR5 or KAS4. The reading ím for DUsessig is otherwise con˜rmed by Proto-Ea 508 (MSL 14, 52).4 This also occurs in AN : Anu sa ameli 38 (Litke 1998: 231): A†.ﬁímﬂ.babbar-ra = d Sin(E†) = sa si-su dnam-rat, “A†/dili-imbabbar (is) Sin whose rising is brilliant.” In this case ím seems to be missing by scribal error, but there can be no doubt that in the parallels ím is meant as corresponding to sÿt(um).5 Some sound doubts concerning the reading A† were expressed by D. O. Edzard, in his Sumerian

1. I owe a number of references, not all of which are included here, to P. Steinkeller, who in an unpublished manuscript, independently had reached conclusions similar to those of Cohen (1996). I here include mainly those references already adduced by Cohen. Abbreviations: Instr. †uruppak B. Alster, The Instructions of †uruppak. Mesopotamia. Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology 2 (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1994). SP Sumerian Proverbs, cited from B. Alster, Proverbs of Ancient Sumer (Bethesda: CDL, 1997). 2. Hall (1985: 42) tentatively seeks to interpret A†-ím-babbar as gitmalu, “noble, perfect,” on the basis of the Ab¿ Salabÿkh writing A†-im4(DU)-babbar(UD) (OIP 99 47: 56), which is not accepted here.

3. According to Sjöberg, the reading was con˜rmed by collation by D. J. Wisemann, but a more convincing collation by Lambert denying it was reported by Hall (1985: 42). See note 6 below. The text is †ulgi Hymn G: 15, most recently edited by Klein (1991: 292–313). S. N. Kramer in his collations (1974: 93– 94), gives a summary of the text, but does not comment on the sign. 4. ím also occurs in {h Nippur Forerunner viii 93 (Ms Civil): gi-bunin-lú-ím(var. -im), which hardly brings us closer to what ím means in our case. Neither does the equation of ím (or gim4) with sanûm seem to help, see Antagal iii 113 (MSL 17 154); see also Secondary Proto-Ea/Aa no. 17 rev. 10 (MSL 14 139). An alternative solution, to see ím as used syllabically for the verbal pre˜x im, is most unlikely and would be unparalleled. 5. See AHw 110 sÿtu(m) B, “(Sonnen-)Aufgang,” sÿ(t) samsi, etc.; CAD S 216 sÿtu, “sunrise,” etc.

1

JCS 56 (2004)

2

BENDT ALSTER

Grammar (2003: 65). Edzard keeps the possibility of reading deli or dili open, stating that there is “no variant ás.”6 In my opinion the question can now be solved by means of a syllabic writing in CT 58, no. 44 (BM 113236), l. 4, published in 1990. In the catalog, p. 20, this was read ù-mu-un di-li bar6-bar6 ªxº, with the remark: “note that A† was read as dili.” The line belongs to a syllabically written emesal hymn to the moon god, similar to VS 2 68, in which it is paralleled by obv. 3: ù-mu-un ddiliím-babbar, etc. Therefore, although ím is unaccounted for in the heavy phonetic writing, the CT 58, 44 writing may immediately be accepted as a syllabic rendering of ddili-ím-babbar, in which ím partly coincided with the preceding /dili/.7 The meaning “he whose rising is brilliant” can be corroborated from AN = Anum III 26 cited above, and it ˜ts well in light of an expression such as CBS 8084, l. 20, dsuen en an-na dili-zu-ne mah-meen, “Oh Suen, lord, you who alone are supreme in the sky,” in a hymn to the moon god.8

6. The copy in CT 36, 26 l. 15 shows dPA.KA†4.UD-re, in which PA might be explained as a miscopied ás, but is this rather simply a miscopied A†? Edzard refers to M. Krebernik, RlA 8, 362–63 § 2.3 for further details. See also n. 3 above. In Edzard (2003: 62), dA†-im4-bar6-bar6/babbar, im4 is a misprint for ím, or it refers to the Ab¿ Salabÿkh writing mentioned above n. 2, in which, however, there is remarkably no divine determinative. The two practically identical meanings of dili and as both relate to “one;” see also Edzard (2003: 141). Of these, dili is the more likely reading when used as a verbal noun or a “verbal numeral.” This is clear from phonetic writings such as, e.g., Manchester Tammuz 186, di-li-ne mah, = dili-ni mah, “who is uniquely supreme,” said of Inanna (Alster 1992). Other phonetic writings occur: VS 2 3 i 23: [di]-li-zu (said of Inanna; see Cavigneaux 1987: 58); VS 2 31 i 17: diGir di-li-zu ama-su-ga-la-na . . . (= usumgal-an-na). The partly verbal force of dili also appears from Instr. †uruppak 69–70: dili-ni = e-dis-su, “he alone;” 166 dili-zu-ne, “when you are alone;” SP 5.74 B (6): Gá-e dili-Gu10-ne, “since I am all alone” (the parallel SP 5.71 A omits Gu10-ne); also SP 5.73: Gá-e diliGu10-ne. 7. The disappearance of the ˜nal consonant m in [dilim(-b)] > ÿb would be expected in phonetically written texts. The line might of course also be interpreted without the ím as a scribal pun or a “popular etymology,” understanding ù-mu-un dili-bar6-bar6 as “the lord who alone is shining,” or “who is uniquely shining.” In favor of this speaks VS 2 4 rev, i 9: en diil5(EL) en bar6-bar6 . . . , “the unique lord, the shining lord” = 35 = 38, said of the moon-god; see Sjöberg (1962: 97, with further references p. 99).

A decisively alternative interpretation is, however, oˆered by M. Cohen (1996: 11 n. 20).9 Cohen accepts the reading dilim, but sees it as a syllabic writing for the “bowl”-sign, normally written dílim(LI†). He suggests the meaning “white (or shining) bowl” for the name, relating it to the crescent or boat-like shape of the moon.10 If this is justi˜ed, it raises interesting questions regarding the explanations of the late lexical lists mentioned above: these are mere examples of how the names of earlier third millennium lists, sometimes no longer fully understood, were interpreted in the ˜rst millennium god lists. The scribes did the best they could, sometimes making sensible guesses. The above-mentioned equations from AN = Anum may therefore represent ˜rst-millennium reinterpretations of an old term that was no longer fully understood. We then do not have to see the equation ím = sÿt(um), otherwise di¯cult to justify, as a rendering of the original meaning of d A†-ím-babbar. The ÍM-sign can best be understood as a “gloss” dilimím-babbar, possibly punning on DIL, meaning “the unique one,”11 dili(-m) being an ancient phonetic writing or scribal whimsy for dílim(LI†).12

8. Published by Sjöberg (1973), with a duplicate UM 2915-58. Compare also similar expressions said of Inanna, e.g., Lugalbanda in Hurrumkurra 449: dinanna nin-ªdiliº diGir numu-un-da-sá, “Inanna, unique lady with whom no god compares,” etc. (see Alster in press). 9. CT 58 44 was already cited by Cohen (1996: 11, n. 20). He also cites Cavigneaux and al-Rawi (1994: 74, l. 8): di-il-imba?-pa-ra as additional evidence for the reading dili. Cf. also ZA 85 (1995) 197 and 205. 10. This also applies to the Ab¿ Salabı™kh writing dili-im4, which can be interpreted as a sophisticated rendering of the same word as dílim, or a gloss. 11. Cohen does not exclude the possibility that dilim was an archaic variant pronunciation for dili “one.” I, however, consider the possibility of reading /dilim/ as the numeral “one,” as excluded, because this does not have an m-ending, which would have generated forms such as *dili-ma-ni, instead of the well attested dili-ni. 12. LI† = dílim is equated with itquru; see CAD I/J 300 “spoon, shallow bowl” (AHw 404 “Löˆel; Wagenschale”). This apparently also occurs in N 4248 and UET 6/2 315 Sec A 3: . . . kù-ga-ke4-es; kù-sig17-ga-ke4-es; dub-sen-na-ke4-es; dub-sendíliM-na-ke4–es; Gá-e ba-til-dè-en, “Because of my silver, because of my gold, because of my money chest, because of my . . . , I am ˜nished” (see Alster 1997: 290). SLTNi 128 iv 4–5

EXIT Asimbabbar? THE READING OF dA†/dili-ím-barbar

However, a suggestion made by I. Finkel (in Guinan 2002: 40, n. 1) points in another direction. Finkel suggests that the esoteric writing of the royal name ìr-se-em-me-éb-bé may represent Warad-Sin.13 This would not support the reading dili for A† suggested above, since se-em-me-

(joins N 3579), in a Sammeltafel, inscribed with, i.a., quotations from NíG-nam Vers. A–C; SP 17 Sec. B 3 and parallels, contains in rev. iv 4–5 this sequence: 14 dílim má-gur8-kù-ga, 15 dnanna lugal-zu / an-na si-gub-bu, “(on the) 14th(?) (as a?) spoon, a pure magur-boat, (on the) 15th(?) your lord Nanna positions himself in the sky.” Although the context is very dif˜cult, this may be taken as a hint at the association of the shape of the moon with a bowl or spoon-like symbol as well as with the boat-like shape of the moon. The two numerals 14, and 15, apparently refer to dates in a sequence of cultic events. 13. I owe this reference to M. J. Geller.

3

éb-bé seems to pun on the reading *asimbabbar, through ebbu = babbar. Yet, since the esoteric writing may re˘ect graphic puns only, it does not necessarily exclude the reading dili. It is rather another example of how new graphic puns could develop. Some were in eˆect already since the middle of the third millennium BC. In conclusion, in agreement with Edzard, as cited above, I consider dili the most likely reading of the name, but, following Cohen, I now tentatively prefer to see this as an ancient writing for dílim, possibly meaning “bowl,” or perhaps rather “spoon,” also ˜tting as a symbol of the moon god, but one that was later reinterpreted as “rising,” and only related to the numeral one through a pun. This concords with Sjöberg’s reading Dilimbabbar, cited above.

References Alster, B. 1992 The Manchester Tammuz. ASJ 14: 1–46. In Press Demons in the Conclusion of Lugalbanda in Hurrumkurra. Iraq. Cavigneaux, A. 1987 Notes sumérologiques. ASJ 9: 46–65. Cavigneaux, A., and F. N. H. al-Rawi 1994 Charmes de Sippar et de Nippur. In Cinquantedeux ré˘exions sur le Proche-Orient ancien oˆertes en hommage à Léon De Meyer, ed. A. Degraeve. Mesopotamian History and Environment, Occasional Publications II. Leuven: Peeters. Cohen, M. 1996 The Sun, the Moon, and the City of Ur. Pp. 7– 20 in Religion and Politics in the Ancient Near East, ed. A. Berlin. Bethesda: CDL. Edzard, D. O. 2003 Sumerian Grammar. Leiden: Brill. Guinan, A. 2002 If a Severed Head Laughs: Stories of Divinatory Interpretation. Pp. 13–40 in Magic and Divination in the Ancient World, eds. L. Ciraolo and J. Seidel. Groningen: Styx. Hall, M. J. 1985 A Study of the Sumerian Moon-God, Nanna/ Suen. Ph.D. diss.: University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania.

Klein, J. 1991 The Coronation and Consecration of †ulgi in the Ekur (†ulgi O). Pp. 292–313 in Ah Assyria . . . : Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor, eds. M. Cogan and I. Ephal. Scripta Hierosolymitana 33. Jerusalem: Magness. Kramer, S. N. 1974 CT xxxvi: Corrigenda and Addenda. Iraq 36: 93–102. Litke, R. L. 1998 A Reconstruction of the Assyro-Babylonian God-List AN: dAn-Anum and AN: Anu sá ameli. Texts from the Babylonian Collection. Bethesda: CDL. Sjöberg, Å. W. 1960 Der Mondgott Nanna-Suen in der sumerischen Überlieferung. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. 1973 Miscellaneous Sumerian hymns. ZA 63: 1–55. 2003 Notes on Selected Entries from the Ebla Vocabulary es2–bar-kin5 (I). Pp. 527–68 in Festschrift für B. Kienast zu seinem 70. Geburtstage . . . , ed. G. J. Selz, AOAT 274, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

WHAT A DIFFERENCE A DAY MADE . . . : ON OLD BABYLONIAN MONTH LENGTHS1 Michel Tanret University of Ghent

There seems to be a silent consensus about the length of the month in the Old Babylonian period. This silence has been broken sporadically to rea¯rm the idea that during this period months could have twenty-nine or thirty days (e.g., Landsberger 1949; Sigrist 1977a: 173; Van Lerberghe 1991: 50; Cohen 1993: 4).1 The basic idea is, of course, that the Babylonian calendar was lunisolar: the years re˘ect the solar and the months the lunar aspect. As is well known, lunar months in fact vary between twenty-nine and thirty-one days, but the longest ones were very exceptional (Huber 1982: 25). It follows logically that there should be a re˘ection of the two remaining month lengths in the calendar, but everyone agrees that there is no ˜xed pattern, as none of the twelve months are thought to be always twenty-nine or always thirty days long. The supposed variation thus depended on observations of the moon’s appearance. Huber has calculated that the crescent’s ˜rst visibility varied between twenty-nine and thirty “in a quite irregular and not easily predictable sequence, but which is not really random” (1982: 25). I will try to show that there is in fact no evidence at all for the existence of twenty-nine-day months in the administrative calendar of the Old Babylonian period. The implication is that during

this period a ˜xed calendrical month length of thirty days was used independent of lunar observations. The existence of thirty-day months is easy to prove since we have many texts dated on the thirtieth of the month throughout the period.2 It is more di¯cult to prove that all months had this length, or that none were twenty-nine days long, but that is what I will try to do. Ur-Utu’s Prayer Two ikribu-prayers published by L. De Meyer (1982) contain an interesting passage. The ˜rst one, Di 261, reads, on lines 7–9 of the obverse, ( . . . ) is-tu iitibára.zag.gar ud 20.kam a-di itibára.zag.gar ud 20.kam sa sa-at-tim e-ri-ib-ti 6 su.si u4 -ma-tim 6 su.si ﬁùﬂ mu-si-a-tim Following the editor of the text, we translate: from the ˜rst month, twentieth day until the ˜rst month, twentieth day, of the year to come six times sixty days and six times sixty nights. The same exact passage is repeated on lines 16–18 of the reverse. It is di¯cult to express more clearly that a year has 360 days and 360 nights. The second text, Di 262, repeats the same formula, although the passage is partly broken. It has to be

1. This article is the result of research undertaken within the framework of the “Interuniversity Pole of Attraction Programme 5/14 – Belgian State. Federal O¯ce for Scienti˜c, Technical and Cultural Aˆairs.”

2. Huber compiled a table of month lengths, essentially of thirty-day months (1982: 62–63). New material allows us to add more thirty-day months but many gaps still remain.

5

JCS 56 (2004)

6

MICHEL TANRET

stressed that we are in a religious context, not an administrative one, and that even here the count of 360 is used, when months for one year are added up. In the Edubaåa In a recently published Edubaåa text (Civil 1985), a pupil states that the vacation days number six, leaving twenty-four days of “school” in a month. Since no speci˜c month is meant, we must understand that all months had thirty days. At the Nusku Temple in Nippur M. Sigrist (1977b) has analyzed CBS 8850, a list in eight columns of oˆerings for one year in the Nusku temple at Nippur. As explained by the author, the text ˜rst lists all the ingredients for the meals of the gods during one day. It then goes on with the distribution of the oˆerings for the evening and morning meals, and probably also speci˜ed what each god received. The part that is of interest to us is the total for each of the ingredients (col. VII). Numbers such as, for example, 354 ˜shes (ku6 .kurum VII, 17) clearly show that they spanned a period of 354 days. This is followed by quantities of ingredients not delivered during the remaining six days of the year (end of col. VII and beginning of col. VIII), called ud.da.gíd.da (VIII, 3). This is formulated as “istu [list of oˆerings/ingredients for six days, e.g., 6 udu in VII, 28] sa 6 ud.da-gíd.da nash¿.” The text must thus be understood in the following manner: totals of the ingredients/oˆerings (for 354 days), after the ingredients/oˆerings for six days have been deducted. Sigrist (1977b: 176– 77) had already concluded that “Il n’est pas vraisembable qu’il s’agisse là d’un raccourcissement de l’année. Elle aurait été réduite dans ce cas à 348 jours, soit 12 mois de 29 jours.” He logically deduced that: “il y eut 6 jours de l’année pendant lesquels aucune livraison ne fut faite.” One step further would have led him to our conclusion: since these six days are not used to shorten the year, the 354 days of the text are not the total number of days within a year but, as can be expected in a ration list, the number of days over which rations were actually distributed. As, in One Line Long

Sigrist’s own words, no rations were distributed during six days, the year thus counted 354 ration days + 6 non-ration days = 360 days, or twelve months of thirty days each. K. Van Lerberghe has shown that this text was an estimate drawn up in the third month of the year, and that an intercalary month was later added after the sixth one (1991: 51). This would mean that the year in question, Hammurapi 35, totalled 390 days. It would also mean that the ud.da.gíd.da days for the current year were known in advance, at least by the third month. It must be noted that we are in a cultic context, and that even here the administrative calendar of thirtyday months was used. Proof to the Contrary? In his article on Old Babylonian month names, S. Greengus mentions that M. Sigrist had demonsrated that the year at Larsa had 354 days because six of its months had twenty-nine and the six others thirty days (1987: 214 n. 21). Sigrist indeed states that, for the Ur III period, it is di¯cult to prove that there were twenty-nine- and thirty-day months (1977: 380). According to him, only indirect proof is possible, deriving from the Old Babylonian period. He provides references to ˜ve thirty-day months, during the 34rd year of Rÿm-Sîn of Larsa, and adds, “Et probablement y avait-il un sixième mois de 30 jours.” Then, without any further documentation, he states “Tous les autres mois sont de 29 jours, totalisant 354 jours.” This is simply a hypothesis, oˆered without any proof. The ud.da.gíd.da Days In the Nusku temple text the expression ud.da.gíd.da is used. This has some bearing on the month length issue, since it has been used as evidence for the existence of twenty-nine-day months. I will now show that, as could already be deduced from the Nusku text, there was no connexion between ud.da.gíd.da and the length of a month in Babylonia. B. Landsberger’s footnote (1949: 254 n. 31), in his article on the Jahreszeiten, about ud.da.gíd.da, or “deductible days,” established that these were

WHAT A DIFFERENCE A DAY MADE . . .

listed in opposition to the ud.da.zal.la, the latter being the time for which someone was paid wages. As the author states in the same footnote, the former were not counted, contrary to the latter, which were counted within an “Abrechnungsperiode.” He concludes that the administration counted all months as having thirty days and, for the calculation of wages and other disbursements, when twenty-nine-day months were included in this period, subsequently deducted the number of extra days. These were the ud.da.gíd.da days. I agree with him in general, but diˆer on the last point. I propose that indeed no wages were paid—or in other contexts no oˆers were given, no rations distributed—on these days, but this had nothing to do with the length of month. The real reason for this accounting practice was that on these days no work was done, and consequently no rations had to be distributed, or, for some religious reason, no oˆerings were given. The point is not the existence of the day but the existence of the disbursement. At ˜rst sight, there is evidence to the contrary. Indeed, Van Lerberghe remarks that there seems to be some regularity in the distribution of the ud.da.gíd.da days (1991: 51). He states that there were two twenty-nine-day months in a ˜ve-month period (his no. 32), or in a four-month period (CT 2, 18), and six twenty-nine-day months in a period of twelve months (Sigrist 1977b: 172). This last reference is the Nusku temple ration list cited above. I have already argued that this text does not provide any evidence for a twenty-nine-day month length, but is this also the case for CT 2, 18?

The Evidence of CT 2, 18 This is in fact the main text adduced as proof by Landsberger, and others after him. I will present my interpretation of this text, and demonstrate that it cannot be used to posit a twentynine-day month in Old Babylonian times. The Obverse On the obverse of CT 2, 18 quantities of bran (duh.duru5) and beer (kas) are listed, divided into

7

˜ve periods of time. For each period the following speci˜cations are given: a. time span - from a certain day in a certain month until a day in another month - the number of days and/or months between these dates.3 b. the bran - the quantity of bran per day c. the ud.da.gíd.da days - in some cases a number of these days has been deducted (nashu). The total (l. 17) adds up the amount of bran over the ˜ve periods and the barley required for the production of this bran is given (l. 18). This is exactly 1/4 of the bran. Then follows the amount of dry bran (duh. hád.du l. 19), its barley (l. 20) being exactly 1/5th of this. These two last totals must relate to diˆerent stages of production, not mentioned in the text up to this point. In tabulated form the numbers are as in Table 1. The place of the ud.da.gíd.da days. Two sections of the obverse, a and b, mention ud.da.gíd.da days, the three other ones (c–e) do not.4 For a as well as b it is possible to precisely situate these “deductible days.” When we recalculate the numbers, we see that in all cases the full number of

3. How this calculation is made is shown by lines 10 and 11 of the text. Here it is stated that from VIII 28 to X 8 there is one month and ten days. There are no “deductible days” in this section, so we can be sure of the full count of thirty days per month. Including the VIII 28 and the X 8 gives a total of forty-one days, one too many. The scribe either started on VIII 29 and included X 8, or he started on VIII 28 and did not include X 8. Whichever solution is chosen makes no diˆerence for our purpose. 4. The third section, our c, has one month and ten days during which two bariga are disbursed daily, which makes sixteen gur, as given by the text. The fourth section, our d, is cryptic: only an adi term is given and the number 8 is added at the end of the line. The ˜fth one, our e, has an error: 2 bán daily yields a total of 1.4.4.0 after twenty-nine days, and not after twenty-eight days as stated on line 16. The number of days between X 26 and XI 25 is indeed twenty-nine. Between sections d and e there are no ud.da.gíd.da days and indeed the one ends on X 25 and the next starts on X 26.

8

MICHEL TANRET

Table 1 Brana

From

To b

Months

Days

Quantity/Day

ud.da.gíd.da Days

Text Lines

a.

12.0.0.0

V8

VI [2 ]

—

24

0.2.3.0

1

1–4

b.

49.4.0.0

VI 3

VIII 26

2

23

0.3.0.0

2

5–8

c.

16.0.0.0

VIII 28

X8

1

10

0.2.0.0

—

9–11

—

—

—

—

12–13

—

28

0.0.2.0

—

14–16

d. e.

3.0.4.0 1.4.4.0

X 25 8 X 26

d

c

XI 25

82.4.2.0

= total bran

17

20.3.3.5

e

18

= its barley

20(+x).0.0.0 = total dry bran f

19

4.x .0.0

= its barley

20

24.3.3.5

= total barley

21

a. The text states: (quantity) duh.duru5 se.bi. The quantities listed are bran, made from barley, during diˆerent periods. On lines 17–18 we ˜nd the total of the diˆerent quantities of bran enumerated in the text and the total amount of barley needed to produce it. b. For this restoration, see below. c. Amounts taken from notes that came with deliveries (sa pÿ zeåpetim), no starting date is given. d. Collation shows that the number after 20 is written in three tiers of two verticals each, which is the usual way to write six. Two tiers of three verticals and one of two, as copied in the CT volume, would be a more unusual—although not impossible— writing of 8. Indeed, whereas 8 is consistently written in two tiers of four verticals, on line 24 it is written in three tiers: 3/3/2. This is no doubt due to the fact that the scribe did not have enough space on the line, which continued over the edge and on the reverse. A similar narrowed writing is applied to the number six on lines 6 and 15. There it is written in three tiers of 2/2/2, whereas on line 28 it is 3/3. The reason is clearly that the two former lines take up the whole width of the obverse and continue over the edge on the reverse. The writing on line 28 does not take up the whole width of the obverse, with a blank space before and after it. e. The barley is exactly 1/4 of the bran. f. As copied 2+x bariga, where the x must be 2. According to the total on line 21 and the barley already given on line 18, there should be no bariga on line 20. If this is so, then the traces after the number 20 on line 19, the total of dry bran, should be discarded. Four gur of se would then give twenty gur of dry bran, exactly 1/5.

days speci˜ed by the text, multiplied with the amount given per day, amounts exactly to the speci˜ed total: a. 0.2.3.0 (i.e., 150 silà) per day during 24 days is 3600 silà or 12.0.0.0 gur, the total of bran for this period as given in the text. The one ud.da.gíd.da day has already been deducted, expressed by the stative nashu, otherwise there would be 24–1 = 23 days and the calculation would be wrong. The end date is broken but can be restored. If one counts 24 days from V 8 onwards, and according to the principle used in sections b and c that either the ˜rst or the last day is not included, the end date must be VI 2. But if every day is accounted for, where is the one ud.da.gíd.da day? The explanation for this can be deduced from an analysis of the next section, b: One Line Long

b. 0.3.0.0 (i.e., 180 sìla) per day during 2 months and 23 days (i.e., 83 days) is 14.940 sìla or 49.4.0.0 gur, the total of bran for this period as given in the text. The total is correct: 180 x 83 = 14.940. This, again, means that the two ud.da.gíd.da days were deducted before the calculation was made. But, counting thirty days per month, between VI 3 and VIII 26 there are exactly two months and twenty-three days. Once again, every day is accounted for, so where do the two ud.da.gíd.da days ˜t in? Another look at the text provides the answer. The periods given are all consecutive, form V 8 until XI 25 (with an unclear period before the last one). According to our restoration, the ˜rst period stopped on V 2. The second one starts on V 3. In between them there is exactly one day (either V 2,

WHAT A DIFFERENCE A DAY MADE . . .

the last day, or V 3, the ˜rst day is not counted). This must be the one ud.da.gíd.da day. The second section stops on VIII 26 and the third starts on VIII 28. The two days in between must be the ud.da.gíd.da days. After the next periods there are no more “deductible days.” Unfortunately, there seems to be some corruption in the text at the point, where the beginning of the fourth period should be mentioned.5 No beginning is given, but the end is X 25 8. This could be interpreted as a belated addition of the starting day: X 8. In this case there would be no day between the end of the third period (X 8) and the beginning of the fourth, and indeed the text does not mention an ud.da.gíd.da day. Returning to the ˜rst two periods, we come to the conclusion that the “deductible days” were

9

situated between these periods. Which means they are precise calendrical dates: V 3, VIII 27 and VIII 28. We must conclude that the ud.da.gíd.da days are not administrator’s tools to shorten (arti˜cial) thirty-day months to twentynine-day ones. The Reverse In the second part of the text, on the reverse of the tablet, the calculations are made in a slightly diˆerent way. The principle is the same: quantities—here of beer—are listed, distributed at a daily rate over a certain period of time. Again, the time spans are calculated in months and/or days. In three out of four instances, ud.da.gíd.da days are mentioned.

Beer

From

To

Months

Days

Quantity/Day

ud.da.gíd.da Days

Lines

a.

7.1.1.6

IV 10

VIII 20

4

8

0.0.1.7

2

22–25

b.

0.2.5.1

VIII 20

X 18

—

56

0.0.0.3

1

26–29

c.

1.0.1.2

VI 16

X 12

3

24

0.0.0.3

2

30–33

d.

2.2.3.0

VI 2

X 30

—

—

—

—

34–35

11.1.4.8

= total of beer

36a

a. Lines 37 and following, up to the date are broken or too fragmentary to be read.

The total is exactly one sìla too little, due, no doubt, to scribal error.5 The Calculations The ˜rst calculation already indicates that the ud.da.gíd.da days are accounted for in another way than in the ˜rst part of the text. a. 7.1.1.6 (= 2176 sìla) for four months and eight days (= 128 days) is 17 sìla per day. Indeed, 128 x 17 = 2176. The calculation of the time span, on the other hand, seems wrong. Between IV 10 and VIII 20 there should be 130 days, and not 128 as given by the text. This looks like a good argument in favor of the twenty-nine-day months. If we are two days short here, this means that between IV 10 5. The confusion was such that the scribe did not calculate or did not have at his disposal, the quantity per day.

and VIII 20 there were two twenty-nine-day months, indicated by the two ud.da.gíd.da days for this period. A look at the last two periods of the reverse will su¯ce to prove this wrong. Both these periods go from VI (day 2 or 16) to X (day 12 or 30). The ˜rst one is said to have two ud.da.gíd.da days and the second has none. This means that the “deductible days” cannot be a way to shorten months: it is not possible to have and not to have two shorter months within one and the same period. Even in ancient Mesopotamia it was not possible to have your cake and eat it too. If it is not used to shorten months, how does the system of “deductible days” work here? It is obvious that the two ud.da.gíd.da days must have been deducted from the time span before the number of days was multiplied with the daily ration. This is con˜rmed by the fact that there is no room to intercalate them between this time span,

10

MICHEL TANRET

ending on VIII 20, and the next one, beginning on the same day. Where are these days to be situated? It is conceivable, but by no means certain, that the two “deductible days” were the last ones of the period, if the pattern was similar to the one of the ˜rst part, where the “deductible days” came at the close of the time span. The two ud.da.gíd.da days would then be VIII 19 and 20. b. 0.2.5.1 (= 171 sìla) is not 56 days at 3 sìla per day; there should be one more day. Indeed, 57 x 3 is exactly 0.2.5.1. As in the previous section, the calculation of the time span does not ˜t: there are 57 days from VIII 20 to X 17.6 The same pattern is followed: before calculation the one “deductible day” is deducted, resulting in 56 days (which the scribe neglected to transpose in one month and twenty-six days). There is a mistake in the calculation of the total amount. The scribe used the number 57 instead of the 56. The total should have been 168 silà, or 0.2.4.8. c. 1.0.1.2 (= 312 sìla) is not 3 months and 24 days (= 114 days) at 3 sìla per day. To be correct we should have had 104 x 3 = 312 i.e., a time span of 3 months and 14 days (instead of 24 days). Alternatively, if the number of days were correct, the total is wrong: 114 x 3 = 342 silà = 1.0.4.2 (instead of 1.0.1.2). Anyhow, the scribe again made a mistake. The period given as VI 16–X 12 has 3 months and 26 days. If, in analogy with the section above, we deduct the two ud.da.gíd.da days mentioned in the text, this yields the total of days for calculation also given in the text. We thus suspect that, in this case, the total is erroneous: it should be 1.0.4.2, instead of the 1.0.1.2 of the text. The fact that this does not ˜t with the total given on line 36 does not matter: this was computed on the basis of the subtotals as written on the tablet, the erroneous one included. d. For the last subtotal no calculation is added, nor any ud.da.gíd.da days. The period has 148 days and the correlation of this with the 2.2.3.0 yields somewhat more than 5 sìla per day. A time span of 150 days would ˜t perfectly with a daily 6. Collation has shown this to be 17, not 18 as copied in CT 2.

rate of 5 sìla. Again, something must be wrong with the numbers of the text. Thus the second part systematically speci˜es a period including one or two ud.da.gíd.da days that have to be deducted before calculations. The ˜rst part gives the periods, excluding these days. Why this diˆerence? This can be explained by another diˆerence between the ˜rst and the second part. The former lists consecutive periods, ending before the deductible days and resuming them immediately after them. The reason for splitting up this six and a half month period into ˜ve diˆerent parts is not given. A partial answer is provided by the fact that the ˜rst two periods precisely end with the ud.da.gíd.da days. The other three periods had none of these days, their delimitation must have had other grounds, unknown to us. It is conceivable that the obverse of the tablet is concerned with the production process. When this was interrupted, because of ud.da.gíd.da days or otherwise, a period ended and another one started when the production was resumed. The reverse lists non-consecutive and partially overlapping periods. These must be various disbursement periods of beer, certainly to diˆerent persons or groups of persons. Here four diˆerent and independent distribution periods are listed. The fact that some of them contain “deductible days” is noted, because this in˘uences the totals for these periods, but there is no reason to end such a period because during one or two days nothing is given. “Deductible Days”on Fixed Dates? The second subtotal of the beer section, on the reverse, extends from VIII 20 to X 18. This falls completely within the second, third (and fourth?) periods of the bran section on the obverse: VI 3– X 8 and further. This means that we can compare the ud.da.gíd.da days in both instances. In the beer section only one deductible day is said to fall in this period. In the bran section the text stated there were two, and we had concluded that they fell on VIII 27 and 28. This is a clear contradiction. We cannot suppose that two different years are meant, because the text gives not

WHAT A DIFFERENCE A DAY MADE . . .

one single indication to that eˆect. So how does one explain this? If we take the ud.da.gíd.da to mean a not accountable day this should be no problem. In the bran section there was no production on VIII 27 and 28, so these days were ud.da.gíd.da. In the beer section, during the same period, there was only one day on which there was no distribution, so this was the ud.da.gíd.da day. All that is meant by the term is that it was a day that was not accountable day. More Proof The unpublished Old Babylonian text Di 472 from the Ur-Utu archive lists periods with the same type of calculations, from a certain day to another one, the time span, followed in some cases by ud.da.gíd.da days deducted. Unfortunately, the tablet is very damaged, but the ˜rst line of the reverse clearly has: is-tu ud 1/2.kam ud.da.gíd.da [nashu]. This is the ˜rst instance of a fraction of a “deductible day.” Nobody will argue that in this case a month of twenty-eight and a half days was intended, which again proves that the function of the “deductible days” was not to harmonize the scribe’s abstract calculations with the real length of the month. Conclusions We have proven two things. First, that when a calendar year’s days are counted, they number 360. Second, that the ud.da.gíd.da days are not a means to shorten “theoretical” to “real” month lengths. Here we can refer to Monsieur de La Palisse, for whom, it was said, a day made a lot of diˆerence: Il mourut le vendredi, Le dernier jour de son âge; S’il fût mort le samedi, Il eût vécu davantage. He would no doubt have concluded, in his idiosyncratic way, that if the Old Babylonian calendar months were not shortened, they remained long. In casu, thirty days. It is evident that the farmers who worked the ˜elds observed natural phenomena to know which

11

work was required. They obviously did not wait for the right calendar date to start harvesting but did so when the grain was ripe. They did not need any formalized calendar. The calendar was essentially an administrative tool used by scribes, a more or less theoretical chronological framework which allowed them to make all necessary calculations. Exeunt the twenty-nine-day months from the Old Babylonian calendar. It would seem that in this period, and this might apply to the preceding one as well, the Mesopotamian calendar had been dissociated from the “real” month lengths associated with the phases of the moon. This dissociation is not as astonishing as it might appear at ˜rst sight. The calendrical corrections, always intercalary months (in many cases certainly thirty days long), sometimes in consecutive years, are another and more ˘agrant example of dissociation. Such an intercalary system was obviously meant to “readjust” the gap between the calendar and the seasons (not the lunar cycles), but it was too crude to ever achieve this aim: in many cases it must even have worsened the gap. This dissociation must have grown and diminished but probably never disappeared. Finally, there even is divine support for our argument: it cannot be by chance that the number connected with the moon god Sîn is thirty. It goes without saying that the appearance, growth, and waning of the moon were observed during this period. For other purposes than administrative ones, another day count could of course have been used but, as far as we are aware, this did not ˜nd its way into the written evidence. A Chronological Consequence The absence of twenty-nine-day months implies that all the compilations of the thirty-day months for the Old Babylonian period are useless, and that this part of Huber’s defence of the long chronology (see most recently Huber 1999/2000) has to be abandoned. If the same should hold for the Ur III period, as we suspect, then the use of month length data for the chronology should be abandoned completely.

12

MICHEL TANRET

References Civil, M. 1985 Sur les “Livres d’écolier” à l’époque PaléoBabylonienne. Pp. 67–78 in Miscellanea Babylonica. Mélanges oˆerts à Maurice Birot, eds. J.-M. Durand and J.-R. Kupper. Paris: Editions recherche sur les civilisations. Cohen, M. E. 1993 The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East. Bethesda: CDL. de Meyer, L. 1982 Deux prières ikribu du temps d’Ammÿ-saduqa. Pp. 271–78 in Zikir sumim. Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, eds. G. van Driel, Th. J. H. Krispijn, M. Stol and K. Veenhof. Leiden: Brill. Greengus, S. 1987 The Akkadian Calendar at Sippar. JAOS 107: 209–29. Huber, P. 1999/ Astronomical dating of Ur III and Akkad. AfO 2000 46/7: 50–69.

Huber, P., et al. 1982 Astronomical Dating of Ur III and Akkad. Occasional Papers on the Near East, I/4. Malibu: Undena. Landsberger, B. 1949 Jahreszeiten im Sumerisch-Akkadischen. JNES 8: 248–97. Sigrist, M. 1977a Les fêtes ès-ès à l’époque Néo-Sumérienne. Revue Biblique 84: 375–92. 1977b Oˆrandes dans le temple de Nusku à Nippur. JCS 29: 169–83. Van Lerberghe, K., and G. Voet 1991 Sippar-Amnanum. The Ur-Utu Archive. Part 1. Transliterations, Translations, Comments. Mesopotamian History and Environment. Texts, I, 1. Ghent: University of Ghent.

AN EXTISPICY TEXT FROM HAFT-TAPPE1 Parsa Daneshmand Tehran

8.

The tablet H.T. 152 was copied by the late Pablo Herrero (Negahban 1993: 390), transliterated and translated by J. J. Glassner (Herrero and Glassner 1993: 126–33)2 and reedited in Persian by the author (Mazdapour 2002: 295–320). Because of some changes that I made in my original reading it occurred to me that a revision of what was published in the past, either by me or by Glassner, might be useful. It seems that, with the exception of a few signs, the obverse is totally damaged. The text does not have a colophon, but epigraphically it seems to be date to the time of Tepti-ahar.3 I think the scribe did not understand all he was copying, but the sense is not very hard to make out.1 2 3

9. 10.

11.

12.

13.

Transliteration

14.

about six lines missing at the top 7. [DI† SAG IGI.TAB GUR-a ﬁTAﬂ †À UZU †UB.BA dUTU ZAG] ERÍN-ni-a DU-ak

15.

Reverse(?)

16. 1. I owe a special thanks to Sh. Razmjou who, through the courtesy of Professor M. W. Stolper, informed me of Glassner’s article. I would also like to express my appreciation to D. T. Potts for his help. Most of all I am indebted to R. D. Biggs for his reading the manuscript, oˆering helpful suggestions and corrections, and for the bene˜t of his advice. 2. Herrero’s copy, published by Negahban, is clearly diˆerent from the one published by Glassner. My transliteration is based on Herrero’s copy published in Negahban (1993: 390). Because of some di¯culties related to the reading of the text, a new copy of the original tablet is necessary, but I could not ˜nd it in the National Museum of Iran. In some cases Glassner’s interpretation of the text is diˆerent from my own, but needless to say, many alternative interpretations are possible. 3. See Biggs and Stolper (1983: 160).

17.

18. 19.

20.

13

[DI† MURÚ IGI.TAB GUR-a ﬁTAﬂ †À UZU †UB.BA dIs8-tár Z]AG ERÍN-ni-a DU-ak [DI† SU{U† IGI.TAB G]UR-a ﬁTAﬂ †À UZU †UB.BA dXXX ZAG ERÍN-ni-a DU-ak [DI† S]AG IGI.TAB u MURÚ IGI.TAB GUR-a ﬁTAﬂ †À UZU †UB.BA dUTU u dIs8-tár ZAGﬁaﬂ KÚR x x x . . . DI† SAG IGI.TAB u SU{U† IGI.TAB GUR-a ﬁTAﬂ †À UZU †UB.BA dUTU u dXXX ZAG-a KÚR x x x . . . DI† SAG IGI.TAB MURÚ IGI.TAB u SU{U† IGI.TAB GUR-a ﬁTA †À UZUﬂ †UB.BA dUTU d Is8-tár u dXXX ZAG-a [KÚR . . .] DI† IGI.TAB ka-lu-su NIGIN-ma GUR-aME† ﬁTAﬂ †À UZU. ﬁME†ﬂ (?) †UB.BA. ME† GI†.TUKUL ZAG É† KASKAL . . . DI† IGI.TAB i-pa GE 6(?) UL-im 3,20 É† d Is8-tár KUR-a RI GAM {AL RI AD AB (?) BA(?) KUR (?)-ad(?) DI† TA SAG IGI.TAB KUR-bu GIM MU† RA NI GAR KÚR TA SAG MU É† {UL-ti i-gi[ir-an-ni] DI† TA MURÚ IGI.TAB KUR-bu GIM MU† RA NI GAR KÚR TA MURÚ MU É† {UL-ti i-gi-[ir]-an-ni DI† TA SU{U† IGI.TAB KUR-bu GIM MU† RA NI GAR KÚR TA mu-ut MU É† {UL-ti i-gi-[ir]-an-ni DI† TA SAG 15 IGI.TAB KUR-bu GIM MU† RA NI GAR †UB.BA DU-ik IGI ERÍN-ni-a DI† TA MURÚ 15 IGI.TAB KUR-bu GIM MU† RA NI GAR †UB.BA DUGUD-ti sà IGI 3,20 DI† TA SU{U† 15 IGI.TAB KUR-bu GIM MU† RA NI GAR †UB.BA A†.DE JCS 56 (2004)

14

PARSA DANESHMAND

21. DI† TA SAG 2,30 IGI.TAB KUR-bu GIM MU† RA NI GAR É† KASKAL †UB.BA DU-ik IGI ERÍN.ME† KÚR 22. DI† TA MURÚ 2,30 IGI.TAB KUR-bu GIM MU† RA NI GAR †UB.BA DUGUD-ti sà KUR KÚR 23. DI† TA SUHU† 2,30 IGI.TAB KUR-bu GIM MU† RA NI GAR †UB.BA A†.DE sà KÚR 24. DI† TA †À SAG GI†.{UR IGI.TAB UZU GIM ha-ab-bu-ri ZI.GA 3, 20 GAM-mu UD(?) DUMU LÚ É† MIN-ma Ù.TU-id 25. DI† TA †À MURÚ GI†.{UR IGI.TAB UZU GIM ha-ab-bu-ri ZI.GA DAM LÚ BA.Ú† UD(?) DUMU LÚ É† MIN-ma Ù.TU-id 26. DI† TA †À SU{U† GI†.{UR IGI.TAB UZU GIM ha-ab-bu-ri ZI.GA DUMU.NITA LÚ BA.Ú† UD(?) DUMU LÚ É† MIN-ma Ù.TU-id 27. DI† TA SAG 15 IGI.TAB UZU GIM ha-abbu-ri ZI.GA TA SAG MU te-su UGU ERÍNni-a †UB.BA-ut 28. DI† TA MURÚ 15 IGI.TAB UZU GIM haab-bu-ri ZI.GA TA MURÚ MU te-su UGU ERÍN-ni-a †UB.BA-ut 29. DI† TA SU{U† 15 IGI.TAB UZU GIM haab-bu-ri ZI.GA TA mu-ut MU te-su UGU ERÍN-ni-a †UB.BA-ut 30. DI† TA SAG 2,30 IGI.TAB UZU GIM ha-abbu-ri ZI.GA TA SAG MU te-su TA KUR KÚR GAR-an 31. DI† TA MURÚ 2,30 IGI.TAB UZU GIM haab-bu-ri ZI.GA TA MURÚ MU te-su TA KUR KÚR GAR-an 32. DI† TA SU{U† 2,30 IGI.TAB UZU GIM haab-bu-ri ZI.GA TA mu-ut MU te-su TA KUR KÚR GAR-an 33. DI† TA †À SAG GI†. {UR IGI.TAB BAR-tu4 GAR GI†.IG KÀ.GAL-a IZI. ME† [i]-ka-[al] 34. DI† TA †À MURÚ GI†.{UR IGI.TAB BARtu4 GAR GI†.IG [É.GAL]-ia5(?) IZI.[ME†(?) i]ka-[al] 35. DI† TA †À SU{U† GI†.{UR IGI.TAB BARtu4 GAR GI†.IG É.DINGIR-[a IZI.ME†(?) i]ka-[al] 36. DI† TA SAG 15 IGI.TAB BAR-tu4 GAR erre-bu IZI KÚ ﬁÉ†ﬂ KÀ.GAL GAR-an 37. DI† TA MURÚ 15 IGI.TAB BAR-tu4 GAR er-re-bu IZI KÚ É† É.GAL GAR-an One Line Long

38. DI† TA SU{U† 15 IGI.TAB BAR-tu4 GAR er-re-bu [I]ZI [KÚ] É† [É.DINGIR GAR-an] Translation Reverse (?) 7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14. 15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

[If the head of the naplasu doubles back ﬁinﬂ the middle (of it) there is a piece of ˘esh, †amas] will assist my army. [If the middle of the naplasu doubles back ﬁinﬂ the middle (of it) there is a piece ot ˘esh, Istar] will assist my army. [If the base of the naplasu d]oubles back ﬁinﬂ the middle (of it) there is a piece of ˘esh, Sîn will assist my army. [If the h]ead of the naplasu and the middle of the naplasu double back ﬁinﬂ the middle (of it) there is a piece of ˘esh, †amas and Istar . . . If the head of the naplasu and the base of the naplasu double back ﬁinﬂ the middle (of it) there is a piece of ˘esh, †amas and Sîn . . . If the head of the naplasu, the middle of the naplasu and the base of the naplasu double back ﬁin the middleﬂ (of it) there is a piece of ˘esh, †amas, Istar and Sîn . . . If the entire naplasu . . . doubles back ﬁinﬂ the middle (of it) there are pieceﬁsﬂ(?) of ˘esh, kak idi, in the expedition . . . If naplasu, a membrance (?) is dark (?) covered (?) the king for Istar, my country (?) . . . If at the head of the naplasu there is a tÿbumark like a snake . . . , the enemy will turn hostile [towards me.] If in the middle of the naplasu there is a tÿbu-mark like a snake . . . , the enemy [will] turn hostile towards me. If at the base of the naplasu there is a tÿbumark like a snake . . . , the enemy [will] turn hostile towards [me.] If at the right head of the naplasu there is a tÿbu-mark like a snake . . . , downfall of the leader of my army. If in the middle right of the naplasu there is a tÿbu-mark like a snake . . . , downfall of an important person who serves the king. If at the right base of the naplasu there is tÿbu-mark like a snake . . . , fall of the rule.

AN EXTISPICY TEXT FROM HAFT-TAPPE

21. If at the left head of the naplasu there is a tÿbu-mark like a snake . . . , fall of the leader of the enemy’s army in a military expedition. 22. If in the middle left of the naplasu there is a tÿbu-mark like a snake . . . , downfall of an important person who belongs to the land of the enemy. 23. If at the left base of the naplasu there is a tÿbu-mark like a snake . . . , downfall of the rule of the enemy. 24. If in the middle of the head of the drawing of the naplasu a piece of ˘esh is elevated like a stalk, the king will be captured, DITTO(?): the son of the man will be born to someone else (?). 25. If in the middle of the middle of the drawing of the naplasu a piece of ˘esh is elevated like a stalk, the man’s wife will die, DITTO(?): the son of the man will be born to someone else (?). 26. If in the middle of the base of the drawing of the naplasu a piece of ˘esh is elevated like a stalk, the eldest son of the man will die, DITTO(?): the son of the man will be born to someone else (?). 27. If at the right head of the naplasu a piece of ˘esh is elevated like a stalk, a misfortune will come upon my army at the beginning of the year. 28. If in the middle right of the naplasu a piece of ˘esh is elevated like a stalk, a misfortune will come upon my army in the middle of the year. 29. If at the right base of the naplasu a piece of ˘esh is elevated like a stalk, a misfortune will come upon my army at the end of the year. 30. If at the left head of the naplasu a piece of ˘esh is elevated like a stalk, a misfortune will happen in the land of the enemy at the beginning of the year. 31. If in the middle left of the naplasu a piece of ˘esh is elevated like a stalk, a misfortune will happen in the land of the enemy in the middle of the year. 32. If at the left base of the naplasu a piece of ˘esh is elevated like a stalk, a misfortune will happen in the land of the enemy at the end of the year.

15

33. If in the middle of the head of the drawing of the naplasu there is a pallurtu-mark, ˜res [will] consume my city-gate. 34. If in the middle of the middle of the drawing of the naplasu there is a pallurtu-mark, ˜re[s will] consume the door of [my palace.] 35. If in the middle of the base of the drawing of the naplasu there is a pallurtu-mark, [˜res will] consume the door of [my] temple. 36. If at the right head of the naplasu there is a pallurtu-mark, a newcomer (?) will set a consuming (?) ˜re [on] the city-gate. 37. If in the middle right of the naplasu there is a pallurtu-mark, a newcomer (?) will set a consuming (?) ˜re on the palace. 38. If at the right base of the naplasu there is a pallurtu-mark, a newcomer (?) [will set a consuming (?)] [˜]re on [the temple.] Commentary 7–9. Since the scribe has marked oˆ each ten omens, it seems that six lines are missing at the beginning. Restoration is based on a comparison with the observation of the head, middle and base of the naplasu, which is frequently used in other parts of this text. These three lines have been translated by Glassner as “Si un GUR.A du présage . . . la tête du regard ” (Herrero and Glassner 1993: 130). The verb GUR (târu) occurs with or without ana in extispicy texts. The latter as is attested in H.T.152, meaning “le retour sur soimeme” (Nougayrol 1945/6: 60). Professor R. D. Biggs has pointed out that a meaning “to turn into x” for ana x târu is not acceptable in the extispicy texts (Biggs, 1969, 163). The vowel a written after GUR is, I believe, a ventive as discussed in von Soden 1952: 144 and con˜rmed by such passages as DINGIR zi-nu-um a-na a-wi-lim i-tuur-ra (YOS 10, 17:38) or NU i-tu-ra (MDP 57, 6 iii 16); see also Nougayrol 1950: 24. One may interpret A as a logogram for ina which occurs in some protases instead of TA, see MDP 57, 6 iii 47 and 48 as well as MDP 57, 6 i 9 and10 where A and TA are frequently used for ina. My translation is based on this transcription [summa res naplasi iturra/it¿ra ﬁinaﬂ libbi sÿru nadi †amas idi] ummanija illak. The absence of

16

PARSA DANESHMAND

TA, I believe, is a scribal error; see YOS 10, 17: 53–55. The lack of a personal su¯x after †À is acceptable: [DI† i-na r]e-es IGI.BAR i-na †À silum na-di (YOS 10, 17:53). This kind of apodosis is common in the extispicy texts: GI†.TUKUL ra-bu-um i-na i-di umma-[ni]-ka i-la-[ak], YOS 10,15:22. 10–12. The meaning of the apodosis is obscure. 13. This line is quite di¯cult; it is probable that some words are missing. kak idi, is probably a feature like kak resi, compare with: DI† i-na re-es na-ap-la-às-tim ka-ak-ku-um na-di-ma maar-tam it-tu-ul ka-ak ri-si i-lum ri-sú-ut a-wi-lim i-la-ak (Nougayrol 1950: 24). 14. The reading GI6 (taraku) is only a guess. This line is very obscure. I think the scribe did not understand what he was copying. The end of the line is unintelligible to me. 15. KUR (tÿbu) is attested in omen texts found in Iran; see MDP 57, 4:11–13. The main problem in this line is the interpretation of MU† RA NI GAR. In my Persian article I tried to read IN instead of RA. My reading was a guess based upon a comparison with such passages as summa teranu kÿma MU† it-gu-ru (BRM 4, 13: 27 cited in CAD E 42; Nougayrol 1945/6: 79, and YOS 10, 17:10). I assumed that in-ni-gar or even in-ni-girx could be an N-stem derived from egeru, which is translated by CAD as “to twist, or to become twisted.” From this point of view my translation was: “If at the head of the naplasu a tÿbu-mark is twisted like a snake.” But I now think this transcription is preferable: summa ina res naplasi tÿbu kÿma seri RA NI sakin. One may read MU† RA NI as serrani. The -anu ending is attested in sakkarani, elilani, sammirani and mirani. All of these words occurred in an omen text published by S. M. Moren (1977: 66–69). It is possible that serranu is an -anu formation from seru. This type of apodosis is attested in MDP 57,6 ii: 54. 17. To my knowledge there is no evidence that m¿t satti is a term for “end of the year,” but is not unlikely. qÿti satti occurs in MDP 57, 6: 19. m¿t simti is very common in references to the “end of life, death.” However, it is possible that mu-ut is not the intended reading. Glassner (Herrero and Glassner 1993: 133) read mu-ut as EDIN. One Line Long

18. miqitti alik pani ummanja is a typical apodosis in the omen texts, see MDP 57, 7:5, 6. 19. For miqitti kabti see YOS 10, 48:37. 20. nÿdi kussî is attested in YOS 10, 33:20 cited in CAD K 592 for expressing “fall of the rule.” 24. It is not clear whether ZI.GA should be read as ittebbi, ittebi, or in stative form. For this kind of apodosis see MDP 57, 4 rev. 9, 29. 24–26. These three lines are very di¯cult to interpret. The ˜rst sign is obscure. Perhaps it refers to an alternative prediction. The occurrence of u4 in apodoses is attested in: u4-ma sà-tu LUGAL LÚ GAZ-ki (MDP 57, 6 iii 20), translated by Labat as: “Ce jour mème, le roi mobilisera l’homme.” My translation is based on this transcription: mar awÿlim ana sanîmma innallid. For occurrences of ana sanîmma on omens see MDP 57, 3:28 and YOS 10, 25:25. A phrase cited in CAD †/II 396 may be a key to solving the problem: lapani PN . . . lidu lapani mamma sá-nam-ma ul alidu, “I bore (the child) to PN, I did not bear (the child) to anyone else.” Glassner oˆers no translation for this line. 27. For this kind of apodosis see MDP 57, 6 ii 31. 33. This type of apodosis is very common; see MDP 57, 4 r. 31 or É.GAL-la-am i-sa-tum-ma i-kaal (YOS 10, 31 ix: 33–35); i-na a-li-im bi-it a-wili-im i-sa-tum i-ka-al (YOS 10, 31 ix 41–44). 36. errebu, “newcomer.” Perhaps it refers to the one who seizes the throne. Glassner (Herrero and Glassner 1993: 129) read these signs as ni ri bu without any explanation. According to Herrero’s copy, the ˜rst sign is er. The occurrence of errebu in apodoses is con˜rmed by er-re-bu É.LÚ i-tabbal, TCL 6, 1 rev. 42. The end of the line is damaged. Its reconstruction is based on a comparison with KÚR É† KI ERÍN. ME†-ia IZI †UB.BA, MDP 57, 7 rev. 26. According to Herrero’s copy there is a sign after IZI, which is very similar to the sign in MDP 57,4 rev. 31. Labat read this sign as KÚ (akalu). If this reading is correct, it could not be a ˜nite verb because the phrase is not ˜nished, so I have read it as an adjective derived from the verb akalu. If so, the reading of IZI KÚ (isatu akiltu), “consuming ˜re, the ˜re which consumes everything,” is not surprising. The CAD translates akilu as “man-

AN EXTISPICY TEXT FROM HAFT-TAPPE

eating.” The use of ezzu as an adjective for isatu is attested in CH 44 42. akiltu occurs in YOS 10,

17

25: 50. Glassner did not read this sign.

References Biggs, R. D. 1969 Qutnu, masrahu and Related Terms in Babylonian Extispicy. RA 63: 159–67. 1974 A Babylonian Extispicy Text Concerning Holes. JNES 33: 350–57. Biggs, R. D., and M. W. Stolper 1983 A Babylonian Omen Text from Susiana. RA 77: 155–62. Herrero, P., and J. J. Glassner 1993 Haft Tépé: choix de Textes III. Iranica Antiqua 28: 126–32. Labat, R., and O. Edzard 1974 Textes littéraires de Suse. Ville royal de Suse 11. Mémoires de la Délégation Archéologique en Iran, 57. Paris: Paul Geuthner. Mazdapour, K. 2002 Sorush-e-pir-e-Moghan (= Soraya Publication), Tehran:.

Moren, S. M. 1977 A Lost Omen Tablet. JCS 29: 65–72. Negahban, E. O. 1993 Excavation at Haft Tepe. Mirath Farhangi Publication No.18. Tehran: Mirath Farhangi. Nougayrol, J. 1945– Textes hépatoscopiques d’époque ancienne con46 servés au Musée du Louvre (II). RA 40: 56–97. 1950 Textes hépatoscopiques d’époque ancienne conservés au Musée du Louvre (III). RA 44: 1–40. Thureau-Dangin, F. 1922 Tablettes d’Uruk. Textes Cunéiformes du Louvre 6. Paris: Paul Geuthner. von Soden, W. 1952 Grundriss der Akkadischen Grammatik. Analecta Orientalia 33. Rome: Ponti˜cium Institutum Biblicum.

A 8003: A FRAGMENT OF ASSURBANIPAL PRISM G1 Jamie R. Novotny RIM Project, Toronto

1

In his edition of some of the historical prism inscriptions of Assurbanipal, A. C. Piepkorn classi˜ed A 8003, a fragment of a clay prism measuring 6.8 x 6.7 x 1.6 cm, as a sub-edition of Prism B (“B4”) since it conformed in general to the “texttype of B,” but departed from it in one passage.2 He noted only that its contents corresponded to B ii 55–70, but that after B ii 65 the inscription added [pa-an (isu)nî ]ri-ia ú-tir-ram-[ma], “I turned my [cha]riot around [and].”3 R. D. Freedman suggested tentatively that the piece was a fragment of Prism C, but was unable to con˜rm this since the fragment’s contents were not available in any form; the identi˜cation was probably made on pa-an GI††UDUN-i[a . . .] in BM 127941 iiu 10u (his ex. W, Borger’s C7), an exemplar of Prism C that preserve part of this same variant.4

R. Borger was unable to examine and properly identify A 8003 for his editions of Assurbanipal’s prism inscriptions since the fragment was missing (“verschollen, nicht au¯ndbar”);5 he accepts with caution Freedman’s identi˜cation of “B4” as an exemplar of C.6 During a recent trip I made to the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (December, 2003), the inscription was once again available for study. A cursory examination supported Freedman’s suggestion that Piepkorn’s “B4” was an exemplar of Prism C, not only because it contained the noted deviation after B ii 65 (col. iu 13u), but also since A 8003 is clearly from a decagonal, not an octagonal, clay prism. A closer study of the fragment revealed that col. iu 14u also deviates from Prisms B and D (ii 66), as well as from Prism C (iii 97), and that col. iiu, which was not referred to by Piepkorn, corresponds to Prisms B/D iii 74–78 and Prism C iv 84–87.7 With regard to the textual alteration, sal-mes a-tu-ra a-na NINAKI URU ENu-ti-ia (“I safely returned to Nineveh, the city of my lordship”) was changed to [sal-mes a]-tu-ra ana KURas-surK[I] (“[I] returned [safely] to Assyria”).8 Since Borger’s Prism G contains a number of textual changes, I tentatively identi˜ed A 8003 as belonging to that edition of Assurbanipal’s res

1. I would like to thank A. K. Grayson, G. Frame, and R. F. G. Sweet for oˆering their remarks on a draft of this manuscript. In addition, J. C. Jones proofed the ˜nal edition and oˆered helpful suggestions. Their time and care is greatly appreciated. Moreover, I am grateful to W. Farber for allowing me access to the Assurbanipal material in the Oriental Institute and to J. Tenney for the e¯cient and speedy supply of prisms. My appreciation goes out once again to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the University of Toronto for providing the funding necessary to support the Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Project. 2. A. C. Piepkorn, Historical Prism Inscriptions of Ashurbanipal I: Editions E, B1–5, D, and K, AS 5 (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1933; hereafter Asb.), 94. 3. Piepkorn, Asb., 43 n. 40 and 94. 4. R. D. Freedman, The Cuneiform Tablets in St. Louis (Ph.D. diss. Columbia University, 1975), 52 (last paragraph). For BM 127941, see A. R. Millard, “Fragments of Historical Texts from Nineveh: Ashurbanipal,” Iraq 30 (1968) pl. XXIII.

5. Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals: die Prismenklassen A, B, C = K, D, E, F, G, H, J und T sowie andere Inschriften (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1996; hereafter BIWA). 6. BIWA, 28, 373, and 4o Heft 70. 7. BIWA, 35. 8. BIWA, 4o Heft 73 A 8005 iiiu 28u (Borger’s D8). For orthographic variants, see BIWA, 29.

19

JCS 56 (2004)

20

JAMIE R. NOVOTNY

Fig. 1. A 8003 + A 11867 iiu 1u–3u gestae.9 This proposal was con˜rmed shortly thereafter when I was able to join the bottom of col. iu to the top of col. iiu of A 7960 + A 11867 (Borger’s G1A). A 7960 + A 8003 + A 11867 measures 13.5 x 14.4 x 3.5 cm and comes from the lower portion of cols. ii–v of the prism. The extant text contains parts of reports of the second Egyptian campaign (A 11867 iu), the receipt of tribute from rulers in

9. For a catalogue of exemplars and details of the inscription, see BIWA, 130–32; and J. R. Novotny, Ehulhul, Egipar, Emelamana, and Sÿn’s Akÿtu-House: A Study of Assyrian Building Activities at {arran (Ph.D. diss. University of Toronto, 2003), 20–21 and 317.

One Line Long

Anatolia and along the Syrian coast (A 8003 iu + A 11867 iiu 1u–15u), the succession in Arvad after the death of Iakÿn-Lû (A 11867 iiu 16u–29u), the conquest and looting of Mannean cities (A 8003 iiu), the submission of the Mannean king Uallÿ (A 11867 iiiu + A 7960 iu), and the war against the Elamite king Teumman (A 7960 iiu). Since no copy, edition, or transliteration of A 8003 has previously been published, these are presented here, with the kind permission of W. Farber, curator of the tablet collection of the Oriental Institute.10 10. For transliterations of A 7960 and A 11867, see BIWA, 4o Heft 40–41 and 134–135. For a copy of the latter fragment, see Freedman, The Cuneiform Tablets in St. Louis, 46–48 no. 36.

A 8003: A FRAGMENT OF ASSURBANIPAL PRISM G

Fig. 2. A 7960 + A 8003 + A 11867 Transliteration A 8003 iu + A 11867 iiu 1u–3u Lacuna 0 [DUMU.MUNUS si-it lìb-bi-sú u DUMU.MUNUS.ME† †E†.ME†-sú] 1u [a-na e-pes MUNUS.AGRIG(-u)-ti ú-bi-la a-d]i? m[ah?-ri-ia] 2u [DUMU-sú ma-ti-ma ti-GÉM]E? la ªeº-[bi-ra] 3u [is-sá-a a-n]a e-pes ARAD-t[i-ia] 4u [DUMU.MUNUS-su] ù DUMU.MUNUS †E†.ME[†-sú] 5u [it-ti te]r-ha-ti ma-åa-as-si am-hu[r-sú] 6u [re-e-m]u ar-si-sú-m[a]

7u [DUMU si]-it lìb-bi-sú ú-tir-ma a-ªdin-súº 8u [URU{AL.S]U.ME† sá UGU mba-åa-ªliº 9u [LUGAL KUR]ªsurº-ri ú-rak-ki-su ap-tur 10u [ina tam-t]im u na-ba-li gir-re-te-e-ªsúº 11u [ma-l]a ú-sab-bi-tu ap-t[i] 12u [ma-da]-ªatº-ta-sú ka-bit-tu am-ªhurº-[sú] 13u [pa-an GI††]UDUN-ia ú-tir-ram-m[a] 14u [sal-mes a]-tu-ra a-na KURas-surK[I] 15u [ma-al-ke] MURUB4 tam-tim [u] 16u [LUGAL.ME† a-sib s]ad-de-e sá-qu-u-ªtiº 17u ªda-na-anº [ep-se(-e)-ti-i]a an-na-a-ti 18u e-mu-ru-ma ªip-la-hu ENº-u-ªtiº 19u mia-ki-in-lu-u LUGAL KURªar-ú-aº-d[a] A 11867 iiu continues for another 26 lines

21

22

JAMIE R. NOVOTNY

A 8003 iiu

Notes

Lacuna 1u ªsaº [ina ter-si LUGAL.ME† AD.ME†-ia e-ki-mu KURman-na-a-a] 2u d[a-ád-me sá-a-tu-nu ak-su-ud] 3u KURm[an-na-a-a TA ul-tu lìb-bi as-suh] 4u [AN]†[E.KUR.RA.ME† GI†til-le ú-nu-ut MÈsú-nu] Lacuna of 8 lines

iu 1u–19u: The passage duplicates Prisms B/D ii 54–71 and Prism C iii 84–102 (BIWA, 28–29) with orthographic variants and deviation in lines 13u–14u. iu 1: The reading of the signs is not entirely certain, but the traces on the prism ˜t DI and MA{. There is su¯cient space at the end of the line to restore m[ah?-ri-ia]. iu 2u: The reading of the ˜rst sign is not entirely certain, but the traces ˜t GÉME; [tam-ti]m is less likely, but possible. iu 3u: Restoration based on Prism D (A 8005+, Borger’s D8); this passage is damaged in Prisms B, C, and CND. Compare is-te-nis ú-se-bi-la (“he sent at the same time”) in Prism F i 66 and Prism A ii 59 (BIWA, 28). iu 13u: Variant from Prisms B and D noted correctly by Piepkorn (Asb., 43 n. 40 and 94). Apart from A 8003, only BM 127941 (Borger’s C7) partially preserves pa-an GI††UDUN-ia ú-tir-ramma, “I turned my chariot around and”: Millard, Iraq 30 (1968) pl. XXIII iiu 10u (pa-an GI††UDUNi[a . . .]). iu 14u: The variant a-na KURas-surK[I] (“to Assyria”) was not noted by Piepkorn (Asb., 43 and 94). As mentioned above, Prism B (K 1775+, Borger’s B1), Prism D (A 8005+, Borger’s D8), Prism C (K 1705+, Borger’s C2B), and Prism CND (ND 4378+, Borger’s CND3) have a-na NINAKI URU EN-uti-ia, “to Nineveh, the city of my lordship.” iu 15u: There is su¯cient space at the end of the line to restore u (“and”). iu 16u: Possibly restore a-si-bu(-u)-ti for a-sib. iu 17u: Another possible, but less likely, restoration is ep-se20(†I)-ti-. iiu 1u–4u: Col. iiu is not mentioned by Piepkorn (Asb., 94). The passage duplicates Prisms B/D iii 74–78 and Prism C iv 84–87 (BIWA, 35).

Translation A 8003 iu + A 11867 iiu 1u–3u Lacuna iu 0–12u) [He (Baåalu) brought (his) daughter, his own oˆspring, and the daughters of his brothers int]o [my] pre[sence to serve as my housekeepers. He sent his son, who had] never cr[ossed the sea, to me to] do obeisance to [me]. I receiv[ed from him his daughter] and the daughters of [his] brothers [with] (their) large [dow]ries. I had [mercy] on him an[d] I gave him back [(his) son], his own [oˆ]spring. I dismantled [the forti˜ca]tions which I had constructed [against Baåalu, king of ] Tyre. I opened [up as many] of his routes as I control [by se]a and mainland. I received [from him] his heavy [trib]ute. iu 13u–19u) I turned my [cha]riot around an[d I] returned safely to Assyria. [Rulers] on island(s) [and kings who reside on] high [mo]untains saw the might of these [deeds of mi]ne and were afraid of my lordship. Iakÿn-Lû, king of Arvad, . . . A 11867 iiu continues for another 26 lines A 8003 iiu Lacuna iiu 1u–4u) [I conquered those] set[tlements] which [the land of Mannea had appropriated in the time of the kings, my fathers. I tore apart] the land of M[annea from inside. I carried oˆ h]or[ses, harnesses, (and) their military equipment to Assyria]. Lacuna of 8 lines

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED Christopher E. Woods The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago

Introduction1

of archeological fortune. In the months and years prior to the winter of 1881 the city, already known from Assyrian and Greek accounts, had de˜ed the attempts by Rassam and others at identi˜cation.2 However, in December of 1880 Rassam’s luck would change with the unwitting, yet happy collaboration of two chance occurrences.3 While sojourning in the village of Mahm¿dÿyah, en route to Babylon from Baghdad, he was shown an inscribed brick fragment collected at Tell ed-Der. His curiosity piqued, he put aside his plans for Babylon and set out the next day for the nearby

Few tales from Assyriological lore rival Rassam’s discovery of Sippar in exemplifying the vagaries 1. This article originated as a term paper for a course taught by Irene Winter at Harvard University in 1995. It has undergone several reincarnations since that time, bene˜tting greatly from many readings, re-readings, suggestions, comments, and corrections—I would like to extend my warmest thanks to the following for their invaluable assistance: James Armstrong, Paul-Alain Beaulieu, J. A. Brinkman, John Huehnergard, Peter Machinist, Jennie Myers, Robert Ritner, Piotr Steinkeller, Matthew Stolper, and, of course, Irene Winter. I would also like to thank Irving Finkel for his collation of BM 91002, as well as P. Amiet, R. M. Boehmer, D. Collon, the Trustees of the British Museum, I. Winter, and the Yale Bablylonian Collection for permission to reproduce their images. Needless to say, I alone am responsible for any and all errors. Citiations of Sumerian literary texts usually follow the Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature, Oxford University: (http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk). The abbreviations used in this paper are those used in CAD R and/or PSD, with the following additions: ASJ Asshur

CS

EGA

Excavations

Impressions

D. Collon, First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East (Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1987). TSG F.A.M. Wiggermann, “Transtigridian Snake Gods,” in Sumerian Gods and Their Representations, Cuneiform Monographs 7, eds. I. L. Finkel and M. J. Geller (Groningen: Styx Publications, 1997), 33–55. 2. The following description of the discovery of Sippar is based on the accounts in: H. Rassam, “Recent Discoveries of Ancient Babylonian Cities,” TSBA 8 (1885) 172–80; Asshur, 397–403; and in H. V. Hilprecht, Explorations in Bible Lands (Philadelphia: A. J. Holman & Co., 1903), 267–77. 3. Rassam’s ˜rst visit to Ab¿ Habbah must have been in December 1880, although he does not specify the month in his accounts. This conclusion is based on a comparison of the date of Rassam’s letter to Sir Austen Henry Layard (cited in J. Reade, introduction to Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum; Volume VI: Tablets from Sippar 1, ed. E. Leichty [London: British Museum Publications, 1986], xiii– xxv, and in E. Sollberger, “The Cruciform Monument,” JEOL 20 [1968] 52–53) with the dates given in Rassam’s own accounts, see n. 2. Also note Hilprecht’s comments in Explorations in Bible Lands, 266–67.

Acta Sumerologica Japanensia. H. Rassam, Asshur and the Land of Nimrod (1897; reprint, Westmead, England: Gregg International, 1971). H. Frankfort, Cylinder Seals: A Documentary Essay on the Art and Religion of the Ancient Near East (London: MacMillan, 1939). R. M. Boehmer, Die Entwicklung der Glyptik während der Akkad-Zeit, Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie 4 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1965). C. B. F. Walker and D. Collon, “Hormuzd Rassam’s Excavations for the British Museum at Sippar in 1881–1882,” in Tell ed-Der III: Sounding at Ab¿ Habbah (Sippar), ed. L. de Meyer (Leuven: Peeters, 1980), 93–114.

23

JCS 56 (2004)

24

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

site. As fate would have it, the Euphrates over˘owed its banks, forcing Rassam to abandon the straight road from Mahm¿dÿyah to Tell ed-Der and to take up a more circuitous, westerly approach. It was in this way that Rassam stumbled upon Ab¿ Habbah, a mound long known to him from his travels between Baghdad and Hillah, but which he had previously, from a distance, dismissed as a levee. Now forced to make a closer inspection of the tell, Rassam was astonished by the large number of inscribed brick fragments lying, quite literally, under his horse’s hooves and he soon made plans to excavate the site. At Ab¿ Habbah, Rassam was successful from the start, for within days of commencing excavations in the vicinity of the ziggurat mound, his workmen happened upon intact architecture just below the surface in the form of a bitumen-paved chamber.4 The novelty of a bitumen-covered structure was not lost upon Rassam, who was well versed in the standard Mesopotamian practice of building with mud-brick and to a lesser extent with stone. Goaded, no doubt, by impatience and the prospect of ancient treasure, Rassam ordered his workmen to break through the pavement. They had scarcely begun removing the dirt in the southeastern corner of the chamber, when they came across an inscribed terracotta coˆer three feet beneath the surface. Inside lay an extraordinary ˜nd—a stone tablet “covered with six columns of the ˜nest writing and adorned with a beautiful bas-relief on the top of the obverse.”5 It was soon realized that the tablet related to †amas and the vicissitudes of his temple, the Ebabbar, prior to and during the reign of its commissioner, Nabûapla-iddina. Consequently, the tablet was referred to as the “Sun-god Tablet” (SGT) and it quickly became a source of wonder and debate under that designation in early Assyriological circles.6 4. Room 170 of the temple complex, abutting the ziggurat to the NE. For the location of this chamber see the reproduction of Rassam’s plans, particularly Plan 3–B, in H. Gasche and L. de Meyer, in Tell ed-Der III: Sounding at Ab¿ Habbah (Sippar), ed. L. de Meyer (Leuven: Peeters, 1980). 5. Hilprecht, Explorations in Bible Lands, 269. 6. Early discussions centered on the interpretation of the image and the reading of the explicatory captions. See Hilprecht, Explorations in Bible Lands, 270–71 n. 2; M. Jastrow,

One Line Long

Although the tablet would later prove indispensable for reconstructing the history of the poorly attested Post-Kassite period in Babylonia, its value in January of 1881 was in unequivocally identifying the chanced-upon site of Ab¿ Habbah with the ancient city of Sippar, long considered to be the Sepharvaim of the Bible.7 As early as 1888, when Jastrow referred to the SGT as an “Assyrian kudûru,”8 the tablet was recognized as belonging to that group of texts, the so-called kudurru-corpus, which typically deals with land ownership, associated tax exemptions, or the entitlement of prebendary incomes.9 Beyond the unique image of the bas-relief and the historical narrative, the main objective of the SGT is, clearly, to commemorate the resurrection of the Ebabbar cult and the restitution of its prebendary incomes as so restored and granted by Nabû-aplaiddina after long periods of desuetude. Since its discovery, the SGT has been deemed one of the masterpieces of ancient Near Eastern art and it has scarcely been overlooked in general treatments of Mesopotamian civilization and culture. The text is often cited for its historiographic and religious signi˜cance, and the story recounting the fortuitous discovery of a clay model that made possible the fashioning of a new cult statue

Jr. “On the Assyrian kudûru and the Ring of the Sun-god in the Abu-Habba Tablet,” Proceedings of the American Oriental Society at Philadelphia, PA (October 31–November 1, 1888) 95– 98; M. Jastrow, Jr. “Nebopolassar and the Temple to the Sun-god at Sippar,” AJSL 15 (1899) 65–86; S. Langdon, “Sumerians and Semites in Babylonia,” Bab. 2 (1908) 145–46; T. G. Pinches, (some remarks upon the recent discoveries of Mr. Rassam at Aboo-habba), PSBA 3 (1881) 109–11; T. G. Pinches, “The Antiquities Found by Mr. H. Rassam at Abu-Habbah (Sippara),” TSBA 8 (1885) 164–69; E. A. W. Budge and T. G. Pinches, “Some New Texts in the Babylonian Character, relating principally to the Restoration of Temples,” PSBA 6 (1884) 179–81; A. Poebel, “The Beginning of the Fourteenth Tablet of {arra hubullu,” AJSL 52 (1936) 111–14; W. H. Ward, “On the Meaning of the Design on the Stone Tablet of Abu-Habba,” Proceedings of the American Oriental Society at Baltimore, MD (October, 1887) 31–32. For additional early discussion, see Jastrow, AJSL 15 (1899) 67 n. 5. 7. Rassam, TSBA 8 (1885) 172; Asshur, 402. 8. Jastrow, Proceedings (October 31–November 1, 1888) 95; for discussion, see below The Inscription. 9. J. A. Brinkman, “Kudurru, A. Philologisch,” RLA 6 (1980– 83) 268–74.

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED of †amas is nearly proverbial among Assyriologists. It therefore comes as some surprise that, given this attention, a comprehensive, detailed treatment of the tablet is still lacking.10 Consequently, there still remains much to say about this often quoted and most recognizable artifact. The SGT Assemblage The gray schist11 tablet is currently housed in the British museum (BM 91000, ˜gs. 1 and 2) and measures 29.5 x 17.8 cm.12 Its width tapers from 5.1 cm in the center to 4.1 cm at the top and bottom and all four edges are beveled. The sculptured scene occupies the upper two-˜fths of the obverse and includes three cuneiform captions. The inscription is written in six equally spaced columns; three short columns complete the remainder of the obverse and three longer tabletlength columns ˜ll the reverse. Rassam recovered the tablet in two large and six small pieces, but it was otherwise complete.13 The tablet was apparently broken into four pieces in antiquity, as four pivot-holes bear witness to an attempt to repair it.14 As noted above, the tablet was found within a terracotta coˆer complete with handled lid (BM 10. The most recent discussions of the SGT are U. Seidl, “Das Ringen um das richtige Bild des †amas von Sippar,” ZA 91 (2001) 121–32 (for previous literature, see 121 n. 7) and K. E. Slanski, “Classi˜cation, Historiography and Monumental Authority: The Babylonian Entitlement Narûs (Kudurrus)” JCS 52 (2000) 95–114; K. E. Slanski, The Babylonian Entitlement narûs (kudurrus): A Study in Their Form and Function, ASOR Books 9 (Boston, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2003), 196–221. 11. Excavations, 102–3. 12. A copy of the text is given in 5R, pl. 60–61. Slanski provides an edition (with brief commentary and notes) in her recent book, The Babylonian Entitlement narûs, 198–210; prior to Slanski’s work, the only published edition was BBSt., no. 36 (for previous literature, see p. 120 n. 2). Another recent translation of the text, with notes pertaining to biblical parallels, can be found in V. Hurowitz, “The ‘Sun Disk’ Tablet of Nabûapla-iddina,” in The Context of Scripture, vol. 2, ed. W. W. Hallo (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2000), 364–68. 13. Asshur, 402. 14. Obliquely stated by Rassam: “It must have been broken formerly into four pieces, and joined at that time with four iron pivots, which have been eaten by corrosion” (Asshur, 402). Jastrow, who is extremely reliable in these matters, corroborates the claim that the tablet was riveted in antiquity (AJSL 15 [1899] 70).

25

91004, ˜g. 3) measuring 39.3 x 50.2 x 17.5 cm.15 On the front and right sides of the coˆer is an inscription that reads “Image of †amas, the lord of Sippar, the one who dwells in Ebabbar” (˜gs. 4 and 5).16 As described by Walker and Collon, the inscription is copied four times, twice per side, and is repeated once inside the box under the lip of the left side; in all ˜ve cases it is written upside down.17 Within the terracotta coˆer there were also several clay impressions of the bas-relief portion of the tablet; however, the issue of the precise number of these impressions is as muddied today as it was in 1881. In both of Rassam’s accounts of the discovery, he states, unequivocally, that there were two molds in the box.18 This claim has been reiterated by all commentators19—based, presumably, on the belief that the contents of the terracotta box made their way to the British Museum, along with the rest of Rassam’s Ab¿ Habbah ˜nds, in toto. This view is ostensibly corroborated by the presence of two impressions of the relief (BM 91001 and BM 91002, ˜gs. 6 and 7 respectively) in the British Museum collections. However, as early as June 1881, only six months after the ˜nd, there was some ambiguity as to the exact number of molds. In the initial reports of the discovery, Pinches referred to them variously as “one mold,”20 “some molds,”21 and then vaguely as 15. BBSt., 120. I have converted his English measurements. 16. sal-lam dUTU EN UD.KIB.NUNki a-sib-bi É.BABBAR.RA. 17. Excavations, 103. 18. Asshur, 402; Rassam, TSBA 8 (1885) 176. 19. E.g., R. Ellis, Foundation Deposits in Anicient Mesopotamia, YNER 2 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), 105; F. Joannès, “Nabû-apla-iddina ou Nabû-apla-usur?” NABU 1991/113; G. Jonker, The Topography of Remembrance: The Dead, Tradition and Collective Memory in Mesopotamia, Studies in the History of Religions 68 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995), 162; BBSt., 120; S. A. Rashid, “Zur Sonnentafel von Sippar,” Berliner Jahrbuch für Vor- und Frühgeschichte 7 (1967) 299; E. Reiner, “Suspendu entre ciel et terre . . . ,” in Collectanea orientalia: histoire, arts de l’espace et industrie de la terre: études oˆertes en hommage à Agnes Spycket, Civilisations du Proche-Orient, Serie 1, Archéologie et Environnement 3, ed. H. Gasche and B. Hrouda (Neuchâtel: Recherches et Publications, 1996) 311; E. D. van Buren, Clay Figurines of Babylonia and Assyria, YOR 16 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1930), 189–191. 20. Pinches, PSBA 3 (1881) 109. Quoted from Jastrow, AJSL 15 (1899) 68. 21. Pinches, TSBA 8 (1885) 166.

26

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

Fig. 1. BBSt., pl. 98 (BBSt., no. 36 obv. [BM 91000]). Reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the British Museum.

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED

27

Fig. 2. BBSt., pl. 99 (BBSt., no. 36 rev. [BM 91000]). Reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the British Museum.

28

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

Fig. 3. BBSt., pl. 101b (clay coffer BM 91004). Reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the British Museum. “this mold.”22 And in a short communication in 1884, Bezold mentioned the existence of a third mold housed in the Royal Ottoman Museum that was identical to those in London.23 Jastrow veri˜ed the existence of this third mold in an 1899 paper,24 but judging from the prevailing belief that only two clay impressions of the tablet exist, his comments were apparently forgotten soon thereafter.25 22. Pinches, TSBA 8 (1885) 167. 23. C. Bezold, “Mitteilungen aus Constantinopel und Rom,” ZK 1 (1884) 269–71. Bezold based this inference on a plaster cast of the mold sent to him by Hamdi Bey of the Royal Ottoman Museum (Museum of the Ancient Orient). 24. Jastrow, AJSL 15 (1899) 69–70. 25. This mold must have found its way to the Royal Ottoman Museum by way of Layard’s 1878 excavation permit which stipulated that duplicate antiquities had to be turned over to the Ottoman authorities (Reade, introduction to Catalogue, xvii). It was probably transferred from the British Museum to Istanbul in 1882, along with a duplicate of a Nabonidus barrel inscription (S. Langdon, Die Neubabylonischen Königsinschriften, VAB 4 [Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1912], Nbn. 6) with which it was found.

One Line Long

This clari˜cation of the number of clay molds would be little more than an exercise in cataloging if it were not for the remarkable fact that the Istanbul impression is not identical to the two British Museum exemplars. As noted by Jastrow, the position of the leftmost caption (Caption I) on the Istanbul mold diˆers from the position of that same caption on the British Museum impressions and on the SGT itself.26 In 1996 I had the opportunity to photograph the Istanbul mold (Istanbul No. 459) and a comparison of these photographs with those of the tablet published by King, as well as with a plaster cast of the tablet in the Semitic Museum of Harvard University, shows this indeed to be the case. Caption I on the Istanbul impression is clearly higher, with respect to the rest of the relief, than the same label on the tablet and on the BM molds. In addition, the Istanbul

26. Jastrow, AJSL 15 (1899) 69.

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED

29

Fig. 4. BBSt., pl. 102a (inscription on the front of BM 91004). Reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the British Museum.

Fig. 5. BBSt., pl. 102b (inscription on the right side of BM 91004). Reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the British Museum.

30

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

Fig. 6. BBSt., pl. 100a (clay mold BM 91001). Reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the British Museum. piece adds a phonetic complement -ú absent from the BM assemblage, conclusively proving that the diˆerence in caption position is not due to a distortion in the manufacture of this particular impression.27 Thus, it is clear that the Istanbul mold was made from a second, nearly identical tablet— or, at the very least, a nearly identical image, since it is impossible to ascertain if the original from which the Istanbul piece was cast included an inscription. Based on the diˆerences in label position, Jastrow suggested that the terracotta coˆer housed a second tablet, which, he surmised, was stolen from the coˆer by the local workmen before Rassam 27. Bezold included a copy of the Istanbul mold inscription in his article; it reads: sa-lam dUTU EN GAL-ú / a-sib É.BABBAR.RA sá / [. . . . . .] (ZK 1 [1884] 270). The diˆerence in the inscriptions was apparently overlooked by both Bezold and Jastrow.

One Line Long

appeared on the scene.28 This supposition may not be far oˆ the mark; for although Rassam implies in both accounts that he was present at the discovery, he is vague as to his exact location. And, according to an anecdotal account of the ˜nd given by Ward, Rassam was not in the immediate vicinity at the time of the discovery, but rather the excavators only came to him later with the exciting news of the tablet.29 More telling, however, is the fact that Rassam’s reports make mention of only two molds and not three—very possibly an indication that his accounts were, at least in part, reconstructed from the British Museum accession records rather than from a ˜rst-hand memory of the event. Curiously, at the time of the discovery rumors were bandied about within Baghdad con28. Jastrow, AJSL 15 (1899) 69. 29. Quoted in the following footnote.

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED

31

Fig. 7. BBSt., pl. 100b (clay mold BM 91002). Reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the British Museum. cerning the existence of a second SGT. According to Jastrow, in the years prior to 1899, Budge was in pursuit of these reports and at some point believed himself to be on the trail of this duplicate, but evidently he never met with ˜nal success.30

30. Jastrow, AJSL 15 (1899) 69. Interestingly, there may have been religious motivations prompting the local Arabs to abscond with the alleged second tablet. In light of a local tradition, the tablets may have been regarded as sacred relics. In an anecdote reported by Hilprecht, Rassam claims: “I was then standing near a small pyramid situated at the westerly limit of the mound, which I was told contained a golden model of the ark in which Noah and his family were saved from the Deluge, and that the second father of mankind had it buried there as a memorial of the event.” (Hilprecht, Explorations in Bible Lands, 268). And an account of the ˜nd related by Ward states: “When this bas-relief was found by the Arab diggers they ran to Mr. Rassam, shouting that they had found Noah

with his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japhet. In honor of the discovery Mr. Rassam killed an ox and made them a great feast.” W. H. Ward, The Seal Cylinders of Western Asia (Washington, DC: The Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1910), 100–101. These nineteenth century accounts are particularly intriguing in light of ancient evidence that connects Sippar with the ˘ood. Nebuchadnezzar I, for instance, in claiming descent from Enmeduranki, the antediluvian king of Sippar, states: lÿpu r¿qu sa sarr¿ti zeru nasru sa lam ab¿bi “Distant scion of kingship, seed preserved from before the ˘ood” (W. G. Lambert, “Enmeduranki and Related Matters,” JCS 21 [1967] 128, 130: 8). In the ˜rst-millennium Erra Epic it is claimed that Sippar was spared from the ˘ood, sa Sippar al sâti sa Bel matati ina aqar panÿsu ab¿bu la usbi’’¿su ina balu †amsi d¿rsu tatabat tattadi samÿssu “As for Sippar, the eternal city, through which the Bel of (all the) countries (= Marduk) did not let the deluge pass because it was precious in his eyes, Against the will of †amas you destroyed its wall, you tore down its rampart” (IV 50–51). And it must not be forgotten that in the fourth century Berossus claimed that Xisouthros had preserved all writings from the ˘ood by burying them at Sippar. As Sippar

32

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

Unfortunately, the confusion surrounding the clay impressions is not limited to the elusive Istanbul mold, but encompasses the better-known British Museum impressions, BM 91001 and BM 91002, as well. Of the two British Museum pieces, BM 91002 gives the better impression of the relief and contains a short inscription on its reverse describing garment oˆerings to †amas for the various dates of the lubustu ceremony (˜g. 8).31 This text has traditionally been considered a Nabopolassar royal inscription—one of the few attributable to this king—based on the reading dNÀ-IBILAÙRU in the nineteenth and ˜nal line.32 However, F. Joannès has recently challenged this reading, interpreting the last sign of the RN as MU, not †E†, based on the photographs provided by King in BBSt.33 Hence, Joannès reads the RN as Nabûapla-iddina and not Nabopolassar. Indeed, a col-

is not otherwise mentioned in connection with the ˘ood, i.e., neither in Atra-hasis nor in Gilgames, it seems reasonable to assume that this notion originated as a local, Sipparian tradition and was only later, as our evidence suggests, incorporated into the pan-Babylonian theology. It will probably never be known with certainty whether this belief persisted at Ab¿ Habbah and the surrounding area, enduring at least until the end of the nineteenth century, or if it was reintroduced into local lore by turn-of-the-century excavators, reinterpreting Berossos’s account within a biblical framework. 31. For the lubustu ceremony see A. C. V. M. Bongenaar, The Neo-Babylonian Ebabbar Temple at Sippar: Its Administration and its Prosopography (Leiden: Nederlands HistorischArchaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1997), 305–7; G. Giovinazzo, “La «cerimonia della vestizione» (lubustu) nei testi achemenidi datati al regno di Ciro,” Annali di Napoli 41 (1981) 527–59; E. Matsushima, “Divine Statues in Ancient Mesopotamia: their Fashioning and Clothing and their Interaction with the Society,” in O¯cial Cult and Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East, ed. E. Matsushima (Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter, 1993), 209–19; E. Matsushima, “On the Material Related to the Clothing Ceremony - lubustu in the Later Periods in Babylonia,” ASJ 16 (1994) 177–200; E. Matsushima, “Some Remarks on the Divine Garments: kusÿtu and nahlaptu,” ASJ 17 (1995) 233–49. 32. The mold was ˜rst attributed to Nabopolassar by Pinches (PSBA 3 [1881] 110), and this assignment was accepted by Jastrow (AJSL 15 [1899] 65–86) and King (BBSt., 127). The text has been counted among the Neo-Babylonian royal inscriptions by both Langdon, VAB 4, 70–71, and P.-R. Berger, Die Neubabylonischen Königsinschriften: Königsinschriften des ausgehenden babylonischen Reiches (626–539 a.Chr.), AOAT 4/1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Becker, 1973), 144. 33. Joannès, NABU 1991/113.

lation of the mold kindly provided by I. Finkel con˜rms Joannès’ reading.34 Nevertheless, the attribution of BM 91002 is still open to question. The problem lies with the ambiguous antecedent of the sa in the nineteenth and ˜nal line. All commentators, following King,35 have understood it as qualifying the noun gabru directly (i.e., 18gabri asumit sa †amas bel Sippar 19 sa Nabû-apla-iddina sar Babili), hence, as the mark of authorship of the mold, i.e., “Impression of the bas-relief of †amas, lord of Sippar, of RN, king of Babylon.” However, it can equally, and in my opinion preferably, be understood as modifying asumit directly and in turn, the entire phrase modi˜es the head-noun gabri. Thus, the sa before the RN acts to mark the authorship of the original tablet and reveals nothing about the ownership or commissioning of the mold itself, i.e., “Impression of the bas-relief of †amas, lord of Sippar, of RN, king of Babylon.” Based on similar NB clay impressions of this type36 in which the preoccupation is not with the mold as such, but with the original, this is what one would expect. Thus, the end of the inscription is best interpreted as an abbreviated colophon without dividing line—a simple statement that the mold is an impression of the bas-relief of †amas that was commissioned by Nabû-apla-iddina.37 The former interpretation, ˜rst suggested by Jastrow and adopted by King, was inspired, no doubt, by the desire to see the 34. According to Bongenaar, the ˜nal sign of the king’s name is written over an erasure, and can be read either -ª†E†º (-usur) or -ªMUº (-iddina), (Ebabbar Temple, 305 n. 274). However, neither Joannès nor Finkel makes mention of an erasure. In a letter to the author, Finkel writes “. . . in my opinion the sign is MU and not †E†. The photograph published by L. W. King is slightly misleading, and gives the impression that there might be more wedges, but as far as I can see there are just the ˜ve wedges needed for MU. . . . Geller and Jursa agree with me that it is MU” (Finkel to Woods, 10 August 1998). 35. BBSt., 127. 36. E.g., A. T. Clay, “An Ancient Antiquary,” MJ 3 (1912) 23– 25 and CT 9, 3b discussed below. 37. According to E. Leichty’s de˜nition, a colophon need not contain any more information than is given here. Additionally, he argues, although this practice is not frequent, a colophon can be appended directly to the end of an inscription without dividing line (“The Colophon,” in Studies Presented to A. Leo Oppenheim [Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1964], 147–54).

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED

33

Fig. 8. BBSt., pl. 101a (inscription on the reverse of BM 91002). Reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the British Museum. mold as a genuine Neo-Babylonian royal inscription38 complete with royal self-attribution, when, in fact, BM 91002 is little more than a list—an

38. Aside from Finkel’s reading, it is doubtful that the inscription on the reverse of BM 91002 could represent a NeoBabylonian royal inscription given that it ˜nds no parallel in the fairly standardized formulary of this corpus, lacking: (a) the expected lengthy list of royal and divine epithets; (b) a temporal subordinate clause (ÿnu . . .) describing the circumstances prompting the garment oˆerings; (c) a main clause (in¿misu . . .) detailing the oˆering; and ˜nally (d) a prayer to the concerned deity, in this case †amas. For this typology, see P.-A. Beaulieu, “A new inscription of Nebuchanezzar II commemorating the restoration of Emah in Babylon,” Iraq 59 (1997) 93– 96; Langdon, VAB 4, 1–14. Furthermore, the text is written in the contemporary orthography rather than the deliberately archaisizing script typical of other Nabopolassar inscriptions (Berger, AOAT 4/1, 129–44).

itemization of garment types along with their weights and dates of delivery. Although the text begins with an identi˜cation of †amas along with two of his epithets (†amas, belu rabû, asib Ebabbar), this opening is not to be interpreted as the prologue of a royal inscription, however succinct. Rather, it is a reiteration of the incipit, i.e., the title, of the SGT from whence it is borrowed directly. It is precisely for this reason that the preposition ana does not precede the divine name and epithets, as is generally expected in Neo-Babylonian royal inscriptions.39 All of these measures— the impression of the relief, the reiteration of the SGT incipit, and the colophon ascribing the source to Nabû-apla-iddina—serve unmistakably 39. Berger, AOAT 4/1, 67.

34

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

to identify this list of lubustu oˆerings with the original tablet. A Post-Nabû-apla-iddina Date for the Clay Molds and Coˆer The corollary to Finkel’s collation is, of course, the dismissal of the commonly held belief that Nabopolassar commissioned the terracotta coˆer, BM 91004; for most commentators have unquestioningly attributed it to Nabopolassar, reasoning that he had the coˆer made to keep the entire group—his impressions and the SGT—intact and in safe keeping.40 Although Finkel’s collation of the mold con˜rms the reading of the RN in the nineteenth line of the inscription as Nabû-aplaiddina, this does not necessarily imply that the mold and the coˆer are to be attributed to this king; for, as argued above, the mold itself is anonymous. However, there is converging evidence that is suggestive of a post-Nabû-apla-iddina date for the mold BM 91002 and the terracotta coˆer. Perhaps the best evidence for dating the coˆer and the molds comes from the provenance of the discovery—although a reconstruction of the archeological context of the SGT ˜rst requires sifting through Rassam’s inconsistent accounts of the ˜nd. These reports vary from the mysteriously vague, as in his two accounts written years after the ˜nd,41 to the patently impossible, as in the legend accompanying his plan of the site.42 However, as noted by Sollberger, Rassam’s letter from the ˜eld of 23rd January, 1881 to Layard is clearly 40. The consensus has been with King’s interpretation: “It is clear that the coˆer was made by Nabopolassar as a receptacle for the tablet” (BBSt., 120). For additional scholarship expressing this view see nn. 19 and 32. Prior to King, Jastrow wisely noted that this assignment was completely arbitrary, “Nor is there any evidence going to show that Nebopolassar [sic] made the box or riveted the stone” ( Jastrow, AJSL 15 [1899] 70). 41. See n. 2. Rassam seems to have been more concerned with detailing his comings and goings than with recording ˜nd-spots and dates. 42. Rassam states that the terracotta coˆer contained the SGT and two barrel cylinders of Nabonidus. Clearly, he confused the cylinders with the molds. In any event, it is doubtful that the coˆer could contain all of these items. See Plan 3 reproduced by Gasche and de Meyer, in Tell ed-Der III.

the most reliable source.43 It gives little reason for doubt as it is consistent with the known facts and was written only days after the discovery. According to this account, Rassam and his workmen came across two, duplicate, barrel cylinders of Nabonidus44 along with a “curious symbol made in the shape of a wheel of a tread mill which ends at top and bottom in the shape of a cross . . .”45—no doubt the notorious pious fraud known as the Cruciform Monument (CM) of Manist¿su.46 Directly beneath this deposit they stumbled upon the bitumen-paved chamber containing the SGT.47 Whereas Rassam’s later accounts omit any mention of the CM and claim that the Nabonidus cylinders were found in a chamber adjacent to the SGT,48 the 1881 letter clearly states that the SGT was found beneath the CM deposit. Remarkably, the CM and Nabonidus cylinders were not found randomly strewn throughout a con˜ned area as one might expect, but were, according to the 1881 letter, “enclosed in brick casing.”49 It is likely then, as the Nabonidus cylinders deal directly with the rebuilding of the Ebabbar, that this assemblage—the CM and Nabonidus cylinders—represents a foundation deposit of some kind. It seems more than coincidental, in fact quite intentional, that this deposit was laid directly above the bitumen-paved chamber containing the encased SGT, especially in view of the fact that all of these items—the two Nabonidus cylinders, the CM, and the SGT deposit—are concerned with royal endowments to the Ebabbar.50 Given that

43. Sollberger, JEOL 20 (1968) 52–53. Letter from Rassam to Layard, dated “Aboo-habba 20th February 1881” (British Museum, Dept. of Manuscripts, Add. Ms. 39,035, Layard Papers, vol. 105), reproduced in part in Sollberger, JEOL 20 (1968) 53. 44. Langdon, VAB 4, Nbn. 6. The duplicate was transferred to the Royal Ottoman Museum in Istanbul in 1882 according to the stipulation of Layard’s excavation permit (see n. 25). 45. Sollberger, JEOL 20 (1968) 53. 46. Sollberger, JEOL 20 (1968) 50–70. 47. Sollberger, JEOL 20 (1968) 53. 48. Asshur, 402. In TSBA 8 (1885) 176, Rassam makes a vague mention of ˜nding the cylinders “with” the SGT. 49. Sollberger, JEOL 20 (1968) 53. 50. For a similar argument see M. Powell, “Naram-Sîn, Son of Sargon: Ancient History, Famous Names, and a Famous Babylonian Forgery,” ZA 81 (1991) 20–30. For the dates of Nabonidus’ restoration of the Ebabbar see P.-A. Beaulieu, The

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED

these deposits were apparently intentionally linked and given that two Nabonidus cylinders were included in the deposit, it logically follows that the SGT assemblage, in its ˜nal manifestation, could not have been deposited any earlier than Nabonidus’ restoration of the Ebabbar in his second and third regnal years.51 Following this same reasoning, M. Powell has taken this argument further, suggesting that the vili˜cation of Nabonidus after the victory of Cyrus makes the entire deposit, by virtue of the cylinders, unlikely to be any later than Nabonidus’ reign.52 The SGT would then be just one of the many inscriptions discovered by Nabonidus in the course of searching for earlier temple foundations.53 And, as with other such discoveries, it would have behooved him to re-inter the tablet in its original location. If the suppositions oˆered above are correct, it may not be overreaching to suggest that Nabonidus not only re-deposited the SGT, but also commissioned the terracotta coˆer and the clay molds at the time of his restoration of the Ebabbar. This scenario accounts quite well for many of the peculiarities surrounding the SGT assemblage. The terracotta coˆer, the attempt to repair the tablet, and the bitumen-paved chamber would then represent appropriate reverential measures for the pious disposal of a royal antique. Needless to say, the spirit of Nabonidus’ reign ˜ts very well indeed with these devotional deeds; the respect and care he accorded to his predecessors’ inscriptions, which extended as far as to repair a statue of Sargon out of “his respect for kingship,”54 are well-documented. But aside from the inherent attraction of this proposal, there is adequate in-

Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–539 B.C., YNER 10 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989). 51. See also Powell, ZA 81 (1991) 21. 52. Powell, ZA 81 (1991) 21. 53. Nabonidus inscriptions mentioning the discovery of ancient foundations are: Langdon, VAB 4: Sargon – Nbn. 1 iii 8; Nbn. 4 iii 30 (name restored); Naram-Sîn – Nbn. 1 ii 57, 64, iii 8; Nbn. 2 i 18, 28; Nbn. 4 ii 30; Nbn. 7 i 31; {ammurabi – Nbn. 3 ii 20, iii 1 (name restored), iii 28; Nbn. 4 ii 4 (name restored); Kurigalzu – Nbn. 4 ii 32; Kudur-Enlil – Nbn. 1 iii 29, 31. 54. W. G. Lambert, “A Source for the Reign of Nabonidus,” AfO 22 (1968–69) 5 iv 32–33; Beaulieu, Nabonidus, 141.

35

ternal evidence from the inscriptions on the coˆer and the clay mold BM 91002 to suggest a later NB date for these objects. Owing to the minimal nature of the singleline coˆer inscription, i.e., sal-lam dUTU EN UD.KIB.NUNki a-sib-bi É.BABBAR.RA, and the scarcity of ninth century sources, the epigraphical evidence, although suggestive, is necessarily marginal. Moreover, caution is required when comparing the writing of the tablet with that of the coˆer, as the former is expressed in the archaizing dialect and orthography typical of kudurrus,55 while the latter likely re˘ects writing practices contemporaneous with its date of composition. These caveats being noted, it is still, perhaps, signi˜cant to note that the writing on the coˆer diˆers from that on the tablet in witnessing two corrupt spellings: sal-lam for /salam/ and a-sib-bi for expected /asib/—neither the tablet nor any of the other published texts from Nabûapla-iddina’s reign contain such spellings, despite their liberal use of CVC signs.56 Arguably, these two corrupt writings give the impression of late NB or LB orthographic practices and appear to be at odds with what little is known of early NeoBabylonian orthography. 57 This discrepancy is 55. For the archaizing dialect and orthography of kudurrus, see the General Commentary of the text edition below. 56. OECT 1, pl. 20–21 (Chaldean or Seleucid copy); BBSt., no. 28; BBSt., no. 29; note that the kudurru fragment VA 211 (VAS 1, 57) is probably to be dated to the reign of Nabû-aplaiddina ( J. A. Brinkman and S. Dalley, “A Royal Kudurru from the Reign of Assur-nadin-sumi,” ZA 78 [1988] 97–98). 57. See J. P. Hyatt, The Treatment of Final Vowels in Early Neo-Babylonian, YOR 23 (New Haven: Yale University, 1941); J. M. C. T. de Vaan, “Ich bin eine Schwertklinge des Königs”: Die Sprache des Bel-ibni, AOAT 242 (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1995), 93–108. For late orthographies in general, see also J. Aro, “Der Abfall der kurzen Auslautvokale im Spätbabylonischen und seine Einwirkung auf die Formenlehre,” in Salonen Festschrift, 11–20; J. A. Brinkman, “The Akÿtu Inscription of Belibni and Nabû-zera-usabsi,” WO 5 (1969) 42–45 (early NB); J. A. Brinkman, Review of A. Ungnad, Grammatik des Akkadischen, 4th ed. (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1964), BiOr 23 (1966) 294– 95; K. Deller, “Zweisilbige Lautwerte des Typs KVKV im Neuassyrischen,” OrNS 31 (1962) 7–26; K. Deller, “Studien zur neuassyrischen Orthographie,” OrNS 31 (1962) 186–96; G. Hueter, “Grammatical Studies in The Akkadian Dialects of Babylon and Uruk 556–500 B.C.” (Ph.D. diss., University of Oxford, 1996), 181–216; W. R. Mayer, “Ein Hymnus auf Ninurta als Helfer in der Not,” OrNS 56 (1987) 47; S. Parpola, “A Letter

36

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

underscored by the observation that these writings represent the only syllabically spelled words in the inscription. In the case of sal-lam for salam we note that although consonantal geminations of this type, i.e., CVC1-C1V(C) for cvc1v(c), occur already in OAkk. and OB58—where they are most often the result of a disparity between morpheme and syllable boundaries—they are, as noted by de Vaan, not well attested for early NB.59 However, in late NB and LB there are frequent attestations of spellings of this type, e.g., mah-hir for /mahir/, sak-kin for /sakin/ (3.m.sg. pred. adj.); sup-pur for /supur/ (m.sg. imp.).60 Similarly, we observe that writings of the type a-sib-bi, i.e., CVC1-C1V for cvc1, where the ˜nal syllable is wholly super˘uous, are, likewise, quite rare in early NB and appear to be, primarily, an LB orthographic phenomenon, e.g., mu-hur-ri for /muhur/ (m.sg. imp.).61 Possibly, in our case, the presence of the extra -i vowel, or perhaps better -e (i.e., a-sib-bé), represents a sandhi writing, i.e., a-sib-bé É.BABBAR.RA for /asibebabbar/; such forms occur already in MB, however, without false consonantal gemination.62 The inscription on the back of BM 91002 speaks to a possible post-Nabû-apla-iddina date as well. As discussed in the text commentary, we observe that over 30% of all ˜nal vowels depart from their historically justi˜ed case endings according to a pattern in which, after a double consonant or two-consonant cluster, the ˜nal vowel mirrors the quality of that of the preceding syllable. This is in marked contrast to the SGT inscription in

from †amas-sumu-ukÿn to Esarhaddon,” Iraq 34 (1972) 23–27; H. Schaudig, Die Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon und Kyros’ des Großen, AOAT 256 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2001), 81–119; N. R. Woodington, “A Grammar of the Neo-Babylonian Letters” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1982 [UMI 8310532]), 13–26. 58. E.g., OAkk. im-hur-ru, U-bar-ru-um; OB Im-gur-rum, Imlik-kum, i-din-nam. See I. J. Gelb, “Notes on von Soden’s Grammar of Akkadian,” BiOr 12 (1955) 101. 59. de Vaan, “Ich bin eine Schwertklinge des Königs,” 103–4. 60. Aro, Salonen Festschrift, 18. 61. Aro, Salonen Festschrift, 18; P.-R. Berger, “Der KyrosZylinder mit dem Zusatzfragment BIN II Nr. 32 und die akkadischen Personennamen im Danielbuch,” ZA 64 (1975) 215 n. 20. 62. J. Aro, Studien zur mittelbabylonischen Grammatik, StOr 20 (Helsinki: Studia Orientalia edidit Societas Orientalis Fennica, 1955), 66.

One Line Long

which case endings are consistently assigned according to the MB paradigm. Further, line 18 of BM 91002 yields the spelling -V1C1 for -C1 V1, i.e., a-su-ú-mi-it for a-su-ú-mi-ti—such spellings are unattested for the SGT. Although the inscription on the reverse of BM 91002 may be anonymous, the garment oˆerings themselves corrobate the suggested NB date. Among Nabû-apla-iddina’s many gifts and oˆerings commemorating the restoration of the Ebabbar cult were new cultic wardrobes for the statues of †amas, Aya, and Bunene. Although he presented much of this attire following the consecration of the new cult statue, other garments he reserved, setting speci˜c dates on the cultic calender for their disbursement. In so doing, Nabû-apla-iddina established the so-called Ebabbar lubustu ceremony—six ˜xed dates when the statues of †amas, Aya, and Bunene were to receive new garments.63 Once established, these dates had great endurance, as administrative clothing texts show that the lubustu ceremony was observed on precisely these dates down through the reign of Darius I.64 While both the SGT and BM 91002 re˘ect the same dates for the ceremony, as one would expect, the actual garments listed on the mold are altogether diˆerent from those enumerated in the SGT (iv 39–vi 8). The oˆerings of both texts are presented in Table 1. While it may be argued that BM 91002 alludes to a decision on the part of Nabû-apla-iddina to amend and increase the garment oˆerings set forth on the tablet, there is ample reason to believe that the divine wardrobe of BM 91002 represents that of a later period. During the NB and Achaemenid periods the lubustu oˆerings for †amas, Aya, and Bunene were fairly standardized in terms of the types of garments oˆered. A review of the published sources indicates that a consistent corpus of some ˜fteen garments accounts for the vast majority of all the Ebabbar lubustu oˆerings during those periods.65 Therefore, it is sig63. See n. 31. 64. Bongenaar, Ebabbar Temple, 305–7; Matsushima, O¯cial Cult and Popular Religion, 209; Matsushima, ASJ 16 (1994) 177. 65. Based on a review of administrative texts referring directly or indirectly to the lubustu ceremony, these ˜fteen

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED

37

Table 1. Garment oˆerings for †amas, Aya and Bunene for the lubustu ceremony* Date

BM 91000 (SGT)

BM 91002 (Mold)

7th Nisannu

1 seriåtu

10th Ajjaru 3rd El¿nu

same as Nisannu 1 qarbÿt(u)

7th Tasrÿtum 15th Arahsamna 15th Addaru

same as El¿nu same as Nisannu same as El¿nu

2 salhu; 4 sibti; 1 hullanu; 2 mezihu; 7 husannu; 1 nebehu; 1 túgMURUB4.ÍB.LÁ; 3 túgUD.A; 2 kul¿lu same as Nisannu 2 salhu; 3 sibti; 1 hullanu; 1 mezihu; 6 husannu; 1 túgMURUB4.ÍB.LÁ; 1 túgUD.A; 1 muttatum same as El¿nu same as Nisannu same as El¿nu

* Quali˜ers of color, material, and design are not included in this table. For the terms túgMURUB4.ÍB.LÁ and túgUD.A see the text commentary.

ni˜cant that the garment oˆerings enumerated in the SGT (seriåtu, qarbÿt(u)) are unattested as lubustu oˆerings during the NB and Achaemenid periods. Conversely, it is an equally noteworthy that the garment oˆerings of mold BM 91002 are quite typical of those oˆered in the lubustu ceremony of later periods. To this one might add that many of the garments of BM 91002 are either entirely unattested, or are unattested as divine garments, prior to the reign of Nebuchanezzar II. Table 2 organizes all the dateable CAD attestations (for the clothing of divine statues or for cultic personnel) of the garments listed in BM 91002. Only one attestation per text is included; multiple attestations per text are not included in order to prevent an undue bias of the data. Just less than half of all such attestations are credited to Nabonidus’ reign. The only garment listed in BM 91002 that is wellattested prior to the NB period is nebehu, “belt,

garments are: guhalsu, hullanu, husannu, kibsu, kul¿lu, kusÿtu, lubaru (TÚG.UD.A/ TÚG.{I.A), nahlaptu, nebehu, parsÿgu, s¿nu, sibtu, salhu, tahapsu, túgMURUB4.ÍB.LÁ. See Bongenaar, Ebabbar Temple, 306.

sash.” It has been excluded here because its equal distribution over all periods is not challenged and, therefore, it is not relevant to the argument. In sum, the lubustu oˆerings, as they are listed in the SGT and in BM 91002, form two mutually exclusive groups. Moreover, we note the fact that the spelling of the RN in BM 91002, i.e., mdNÀIBILA-MU, is not attested in texts contemporaneous with the reign of Nabû-apla-iddina, but rather is typical of later periods.66 Although none of these facts is conclusive in and of itself, together they form the strong suggestion that BM 91002 is the product of the late NB period. It may very well be that although Nabû-apla-iddina established the dates for the lubustu ceremony, the garment oˆerings themselves underwent a cultic reform sometime during the NB period. Therein may lie the motivation behind the commissioning of the mold—to serve as an amendment to the tablet whereby the revised and updated lubustu oˆerings could be dutifully recorded. This reform would ˜nd its authority in its shared identity with the SGT, both visual and literal, and ultimately, 66. See the text edition of BM 91002 and commentary to line 19 below.

38

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

Table 2. Datable CAD attestations of garments listed in BM 91002 excluding nebehu. GARMENT hullanu husannu izhu kul¿lu kutinnu muttatum salhu sibtu ziqqu

NAI (.1

Total (% of Total)

1 (.9)

NPL (1 (1

NBK ( 1 ( 2 ( 3 ( 2 ( ( ( (

(2 (1.7)

NER (1 (1

(2 (1.7)

physical, as demonstrated by the presence of the mold within the terracotta coˆer. During the last century there have been other, varying explanations for the casting of the SGT molds. Rassam maintained, curiously enough, that “they were made for the purpose of casting in metal those mystic ˜gures for religious purposes.”67 Pinches ˜rst asserted that the molds served to protect the relief,68 but was later, according to Jastrow, of the opinion that “the molds were intended to preserve the representation if the original should be destroyed.”69 Finally, King made the suggestion that is generally agreed upon today, that “Nabopolassar placed them [the molds] in the coˆer to enable some future ruler, in case the tablet should be broken, to restore the scene; in doing so he would be in˘uenced by the fact that Nabû-aplaiddina was enabled to restore the Sun-god’s missing statue from a clay model found on the bank of the Euphrates, as related on the tablet.”70 Although this view is not without romantic appeal, it is seems unlikely to have been the chief motivation for their casting, as the stone tablet was likely to survive the fragile clay molds. More likely, the intention was to cast one mold71 that could hold 67. 68. 69. 70. 71.

Asshur, 402. Pinches, PSBA 3 (1881) 109. Jastrow, AJSL 15 (1899) 69. BBSt., 120 n. 1. See also Jastrow, AJSL 15 (1899) 85–86.

CYR ( 5 ( 4

CAMB

DAR (1

( 5 (1

1 1 1 1

(12 (10.3)

NBN ( 1 ( 9 ( 2 ( 4 ( 2 (22 (11 ( 1

( 5

( 5 ( 4

( ( ( ( (

7 3 1 1 5

(52 (44.8)

(23 (19.8)

(22 (19.0)

(2 (1.7)

Total ( 9 ( 22 ( 4 ( 18 ( 7 ( 4 ( 29 ( 21 ( 2 (100)

an inscription and, as suggested here, serve as an NB amendment to SGT’s lubustu oˆerings. As for the uninscribed molds, Jastrow seems to have been right on the mark when he wrote a century ago that “the others are rough in execution and impress one as ‘failures.’ ”72 Indeed, the casting of clay molds of antiquities discovered in the course of excavating temple foundations was not unknown in Nabonidus’ reign. During Nabonidus’ excavation of the palace of Naram-Sîn in Agade, a †ar-kali-sarri inscription was discovered and a dutiful scribe recorded the ˜nd by executing a mold of it. So that it would be properly identi˜ed for posterity, the scribe included the following text on the reverse of the mold:73 72. Jastrow, AJSL 15 (1899) 85. Jastrow continues with an intriguing comment concerning the uninscribed molds: “As for the other copies, I am not at all certain that they may not have been made in the year 1881 A.D. by some enterprising Arabs. The fact that the Constantinople mold points to another copy of the tablet that has disappeared is suspicious, and Mr. Pinches, it will be recalled, in one place speaks of only ‘one mold.’ If the two others turned up later, they may have been produced by the law of demand and supply” (AJSL 15 [1899] 86). 73. A. T. Clay, MJ 3 (1912) 23–25; Beaulieu, Nabonidus, 141–42; I. J. Winter, “Babylonian Archaeologists of the(ir) Mesopotamian Past,” in Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome, May 18th–23rd 1998, vol. 2, ed. P. Matthiae et al. (Rome: Dipartimento di scienze storiche, archeologiche e antropologiche dell’antichità, 2000), 1787, 1790. The phrase asarru

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED zi-i-pa a-gur-ru na4KAL sa a-sa-ar-ru pa-li-sutim sa ina É.GAL [a]-sa-ar-ru sa dNa-ra-amd EN.ZU LUGAL i-na qé-er-ba A-ga-dèki m.dNÀNUMUN-SI.SÁ DUB.SAR i-mu-ru Impression of a diorite slab of the discovered(?) asarrus which in the [a]sarru palace of NaramSîn, the king, Nabû-zer-lÿsir, the scribe, found in Agade. This inscription, or perhaps better, colophon, is quite similar to the last two lines of BM 91002 in that its primary purpose is to describe the original, not the copy. As argued above, the ˜nal lines of BM 91002 are to be understood in precisely these terms. The above text not only provides an established precedent in the reign of Nabonidus for the casting of clay molds of stone antiquities, but also for the inclusion of colophons on such molds—colophons that provide information concerning the provenance and nature of the original. It is quite possible that Nabonidus’ interest in the SGT was not limited to taking impressions of the relief and seeing to the relic’s proper interment. The happy circumstance that had allowed Nabû-apla-iddina to fashion a proper cult statue of †amas, namely, the fortuitous discovery of a clay model of the Sun-god, may indeed have been a source of inspiration for him. Nabonidus’ account of his own providential discovery of an ancient stele belonging to Nebuchadnezzar I that depicted the image of an entu priestess complete with “her appurtenances, her attire, and her jewelry,”74 shows no little resemblance to Nabû-aplaiddina’s account. The two texts even go so far as to employ, in part, a common vocabulary in their respective descriptions: salmu, simatu, and siknu.75 It is likely that both stories represent embellishments of the actual facts, a clever literary device

pa-li-su-tim is di¯cult, see CAD A/2 sub asarru A. Also note the mold of a Kurigalzu brick inscription likewise manufactured during Nabonidus’ reign (CT 9, 3b; discussed by Beaulieu in Nabonidus, 142). 74. YOS 1, 45 i 32. 75. SGT: i 14, 16; cf. Nabonidus: YOS 1, 45 i 27, 31, 32.

39

employed to legitimate the manufacture of new cultic appurtenances and to establish continuity between these newly fashioned items and their worthy, ancient counterparts. Nabonidus is often credited for his scholary interest in history, but when it came to the manipulation of that history for religious and political ends, he may have taken his cue, at least in part, from Nabû-apla-iddina. Finally, one may ask about the alleged second, nearly identical tablet whose existence is all but proven by the Istanbul mold. Indeed, it is di¯cult to conceive of circumstances that would have led Nabû-apla-iddina to commission a duplicate relief or tablet.76 More likely, the Istanbul mold re˘ects a later tablet, fashioned in imitation of the SGT. Of course, at this point it is impossible to ascertain whether this tablet was stolen from the terracotta coˆer at the time of the discovery, as was suggested by Jastrow, or was found elsewhere, perhaps with the CM deposit. It is known, however, that during the course of restoring the Ebabbar, Nabonidus deposited his own inscription together with the discovered inscription of NaramSîn (sitir sumÿya itti sitir sumu sa Naram-Sîn, sarru mahrû).77 The question may then be raised whether this very same motivation—the tangible self-legitimization eˆected by physically linking one’s inscription to that of an illustrious predecessor, or more aptly put, “a respect for kingship”78—would have led Nabonidus to include his own inscription, fashioned after the SGT, alongside Nabû-apla-iddina’s original.79

76. To my knowledge there are no extant stone duplicates of kudurrus or similar stone inscriptions. 77. Powell, ZA 81 (1991) 24; Langdon, VAB 4, Nbn. 6 i 16– ii 15; similarly, Nbn. 2 i 14–ii 1. 78. See nn. 53 and 54. 79. The imitation of a predecessor’s deposit, not only in content, but also in form, is not without precedent. Ellis cites a pair of white steatite and copper tablets with inscriptions of Kurigalzu which were found in the company of very similar steatite and copper tablets of Warad-Sîn in the Ningal temple at Ur. According to Ellis, “the occurrence of one stone and one metal tablet of each ruler suggests that Kurigalzu was imitating what had been found.” Interestingly, none of the inscriptions was dedicated to Ningal and the context of the ˜nd suggests that the items were redeposited in the NB period. Ellis, Foundation Deposits, 95.

40

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

The Inscription The raison-d’être of the SGT is to establish, under binding contract, the revenues and privileges of the Ebabbar cult as restored by Nabûapla-iddina. As a legal document, or more precisely, a stipulation of a royal entitlement,80 the text is rather typical, in regard to content, structure, and phraseology, of the so-called kudurru corpus to which it undoubtedly belongs.81 What is remarkable about this tablet, however, is the impressive marshalling of visual and literary devices in terms of archaic iconography and poetic, historical narrative to establish not only the great antiquity of the cult, but, more to the point, its ancient claim to these prerogatives and revenues. The cult’s exploitation of the past as a means of courting royal patronage and privilege is by no means limited to the SGT. Several other such texts are known, but there are serious doubts regarding the authenticity of each. The previously discussed CM, a purported Manistusu inscription bestowing certain privileges and increased incomes upon the Ebabbar, has been decidedly exposed as a pious fraud—a late forgery manufactured in the Neo-Babylonian period82 to strengthen 80. The term, “entitlement,” has been used by Slanski to refer to all of the events commemorated on kudurrus (her terminology: entitlement narûs); see Slanski, The Babylonian Entitlement narûs, 114–15; Slanski, JCS 52 (2000) 95– 114. Slanski follows Brinkman and Dalley (ZA 78 [1988] 76), who ˜rst applied the term “entitlement” as an equivalent to isqu, “prebend.” 81. As early as 1888, Jastrow observed that the SGT was a member of the kudurru corpus based on the content of its inscription, and he thus referred to the tablet as an “Assyrian kudûru” ( Jastrow, Proceedings [October 31–November 1, 1888] 95). King and Steinmetzer seem to have implicitly agreed with this view, as they incorporated the SGT into their studies kudurrus (BBSt., no. 36; F. X. Steinmetzer, Über den Grundbesitz in Babylonien zur Kassitenzeit nach den sog. Grenzsteinen dargestellt [Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1918], no. 35 [L 36]). However, U. Seidl omitted the SGT from her study, presumably based on the assumption that tablets and kudurrus represent mutually exclusive groups (Die babylonischen KudurruReliefs, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 87 [Fribourg: University Press, Fribourg, Switzerland, 1989]). Slanski presents an argument for the inclusion of the SGT in the kudurru corpus (The Babylonian Entitlement narûs, 211f.; JCS 52 [2000] 95–114). 82. Sollberger, JEOL 20 (1968) 50–53. F. N. H. Al-Rawi and A. R. George misunderstood Sollberger’s quotation of Gelb when they wrote: “This text, in the words of its latest editor,

the temple’s claim to these revenues. The basis for this ˜nding rests on the belying epigraphical, philological, and metrological anachronisms as well as historical inaccuracies within the text.83 Likewise, there is good reason to question the alleged acts of piety attributed to Kurigalzu on behalf of the Eanna of Uruk84 and to AgumKakrime on behalf of the Esagila of Babylon.85 It was, no doubt, this shroud of deception that led Gelb to label the SGT as still another pious fraud, yet he oˆered no further evidence for questioning its authenticity beyond the mere mention of its content.86 Undoubtedly, this is a case of guilt by association. While one may be justi˜ably suspicious of Nabû-apla-iddina’s providential discovery, there is no doubt that the text itself represents a true endowment to the Ebabbar on the part of Nabûapla-iddina. Rather, it may be that his distortion of the circumstances surrounding the fashioning of the new cult statue was a source of inspiration for similar Neo-Babylonian fabrications—such as Nabonidus’ discovery of an image of an entu priestess—or, perhaps, in˘uenced entirely fraudulent endowments, like the CM. As for the SGT itself, there is no internal evidence for contesting its veracity; for both the orthography and grammar of the text,87 as well as the format and substance of the endowment, are entirely consistent with its claimed ninth-century date. Further, similarities in oˆerings, witnesses, and legal

E. Sollberger, (is) ‘a fraus pia perpetrated sometime in the Old Babylonian period . . .’ ” (“Tablets from the Sippar Library III. Two Royal Counterfeits,” Iraq 56 [1994] 139). Sollberger, in fact, argued for an NB date (JEOL 20 [1968] 50). Sollberger was simply quoting Gelb who suggested an OB date (I. J. Gelb, “The Date of the Cruciform Monument of Manistusu,” JNES 8 [1949] 348 n. 12). Based on Sollberger’s evidence, Powell has dated the CM to Nabonidus’ reign (ZA 81 [1991] 21). 83. Gelb, JNES 8 (1949) 346–48; Sollberger, JEOL 20 (1968) 50–53. 84. T. Longman III, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography: A Generic and Comparative Study (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1991), 88–91. 85. Longman, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography, 86–88. 86. Gelb, JNES 8 (1949) 348 n. 12. 87. See General Commentary to the text edition of BM 91000 below.

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED

phraseology between the SGT and two contemporaneous texts dated to Nabû-apla-iddina’s reign, the kudurru BBSt., no. 28 and the oˆering text OECT 1, pls. 20–21, provide sound external evidence to corroborate this claim.88 Thus, judging from the merits of the CM and similar texts, the SGT would appear to be well beyond the abilities of Neo-Babylonian forgers. The inscription opens with an account of the devastating period of Sutian raids on Babylonia, during which time the Ebabbar was thrown into anarchy and the very essence of the cult, the statue of †amas, simply vanished (i 1–12).89 The Sutians are not held directly responsible for the loss of the cult statue, for this would con˘ict with the commonly held theological justi˜cation for such disappearances—that the loss of the statue re˘ects the god’s anger with Sippar and his consequent abandonment of his cult center. Although the text does not provide us with a date for these attacks, we can convincingly date them to the reign of 88. The following observations are made by Brinkman: (a) the food oˆerings established in the SGT (v 10–38) are similar to the oˆerings established at the same time in Uruk (OECT 1, pls. 20–21; see G. J. P. McEwan, “Distribution of Meat in Eanna,” Iraq 45 [1983] 187–98); (b) the witness, Marduksapik-zeri, son of Tambasaddar(?), the sakin temi (vi 22–23) is also known from BBSt., no. 28 rev. 23; (c) prominent witnesses in the same two texts are kartappu o¯cials from the Habban tribe (vi 18–19; BBSt., no. 28 rev. 21) and bel pÿhati o¯cials of the Arad-Ea family (vi 24–26; BBSt., no. 28 rev. 24—in each case the ˜nal witness); (d) similar legal phraseology is used in each text (vi 17 = BBSt., no. 28 rev. 18; cf. vi 30– 31 with BBSt., no. 28 rev. 27); in addition, Brinkman further notes that both documents were executed in Babylon immediately after the New Year’s festival on the same day, the twentieth of Nisannu, although eleven years apart (vi 27–28; BBSt., no. 28 rev. 25–26) and that the king’s titular is the same in each case. Brinkman PKB, 189–90 n. 1159. To Brinkman’s observations, we may add: (1) the use of captions is typical of kuddurus attributable to the reign of Nabû-apla-iddina; of the three other kudurrus with captions, two are datable to his reign (BBSt., nos. 28 and 29; the other is dated to the reign of Nabû-mukÿn-apli, BBSt., no. 9); (2) the erib-bÿtis of BBSt., no. 36 and those of the kudurru of Nabû-apla-iddina’s son and successor, Marduk-zakir-sumi, receive identical commodities, with the exception of the various cuts of meat. 89. By the end of the second millennium the term “Sutian” ceased to distinguish any one ethnic group, but rather, in Babylonian sources, referred collectively to Sutians and Arameans. Brinkman PKB, 285; M. Heltzer, The Suteans, Istituto Universitario Orientale: Seminario di Studi Asiatici, Series Minor 13 (Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale), 90, 93, 97.

41

Adad-apla-iddina (1068–1047).90 According to the inscription, Simbar-sipak (1025–1008), founder of the Second Dynasty of the Sea-land, searched for the god’s image, but †amas would not reveal himself 91 and his quest was in vain (i 13–15). However, his attempts to resurrect the despoiled cult were not altogether unsuccessful. In lieu of the statue he enshrined92 a sun disk,93 the symbol of †amas, and established regular oˆerings for it, entrusting them to Ekur-suma-usarsi, the sangû priest of Sippar (i 16–23). However, Simbar-sipak’s attempts to restore oˆerings to the temple were short-lived; for during the brief reign of Kassunadin-ahhe (1007–1005) the oˆerings were interrupted due to “distress and famine” (i 24–28).94 Subsequently, during Eulmas-sakin-sumi’s reign (1004–988), the sangû priest of Sippar, the very same Ekur-suma-usarsi installed by Simbar-sipak, approached the king to complain about the state of the oˆerings—and with good reason, since his income was defrayed, no doubt, from these oˆerings. Eulmas-sakin-sumi responded by entrusting 90. A dedicatory inscription of Simbar-sipak concerning the throne of Enlil in the Ekur makes reference to the de˜lement of the cult centers of Nippur and Sippar at the hands of Sutian and Aramean invaders during the reign of Adad-aplaiddina (A. Goetze, “An Inscription of Simbar-sÿhu” JCS 19 [1965] 121–34, particularly ll. 10–14). This account is corroborated by Chronicle 24 (Eclectic Chronicle) which also mentions Sutian attacks on Nippur (as well as Der and D¿r-Kurigalzu) during Adad-apla-iddina’s reign (Grayson Chronicles, 180: 8– 10; see also W. G. Lambert, Review of F. Gössmann, Das EraEpos (Würzburg: Augustinus-Verlag, 1956), AfO 18 [1957–58] 398); Sippar is not mentioned as one of the cities sacked by the Sutians in Chronicle 24, however, there is a lacuna in the relevant passage. Also observe that the Erra Epic, which may allude to this period, mentions the cities of Babylon, Der, D¿r-Kurigalzu, Sippar, and Uruk as being aˆected by Sutian intrusions. See n. 263 below. 91. panÿsu la iddinsu (i 15). 92. See below under Relief, b. Sun Disk for this interpretation. 93. J. A. Brinkman correctly identi˜ed the niphu of i 18 with a sun disk (“A Note on the Shamash Cult at Sippar in the Eleventh Century B.C.,” RA 70 [1976] 183–84). 94. ina dannati u husahhi (i 24). According to Brinkman, “The circumstances were probably similar to those prevailing at the time of Marduk-nadin-ahhe and Marduk-shapik-zeri of the previous dynasty when crop failure caused famine in the land. The hungry semi-nomads poured in to create havoc everywhere. This would help to explain why the king’s reign ended after only three years” (Brinkman PKB, 157).

42

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

to Ekur-suma-usarsi, on behalf of †amas, a modest regular oˆering of 1 sila of bread, 1 sila of beer, re-allocated from the oˆerings for Marduk, and one garden plot within the New-City sector of Babylon (i 29–ii 16). At this point the historical portion of the narrative breaks oˆ abruptly and the text leaps into the present with the single, inde˜nite adverb, arkanu, “later” (ii 17). After an enumeration of Nabû-apla-iddina’s titulary and epithets (ii 18–iii 10), which are fairly standard, save the important mention of his overthrow of the Sutians (ii 26– 28), the narrative turns to its main subject, the restoration of the Ebabbar. Evidently, †amas found conditions to be so appealing during Nabû-aplaiddina’s reign that he became reconciled with Sippar and “turned back his face (to Akkad).”95 Consequently, the god allowed a ˜red clay model or impression96 of his image to be found on the western bank of the Euphrates (iii 11–25). Nabûnadin-sumi, the sangû priest of Sippar and descendent of Ekur-suma-usarsi, presented this clay model to Nabû-apla-iddina. The king, needless to say, was overjoyed and he soon ordered Nabûnadin-sumi to fashion a cult statue of †amas based on the providential clay model (iii 26–iv 11). There has been considerable discussion as to whether this account should be taken at face value or whether the clay model represents a pious fraud perpetrated by the priests of the Ebabbar.97 The truth may very well lie somewhere in between. That the priests of the Ebabbar had access to, and indeed, maintained such ancient images, is 95. salÿma irsÿma usahhira panÿsu (iii 17–18). 96. W. W. Hallo notes the alternative translations: “baked clay drawing,” “a colored reproduction of his statue of baked clay” (i.e., a reproduction on a colored clay plaque), or “a kiln˜red clay mold showing a relief with his (†amas) likeness” “Cult Statue and Divine Image: A Preliminary Study,” in Scripture in Context 2: More Essays on the Comparative Method, ed. W. W. Hallo, J. C. Moyer, L. G. Perdue (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 13, with refernces. For a full discussion of this issue, see the commentary to iii 20 in the text edition below. 97. The latter position has been concluded by Powell, ZA 81 (1991) 30; Gelb, JNES 8 (1940) 348 n. 12; and Lambert, AfO 18 (1957–58) 398–99. However, in the most recent discussion of this issue, Seidl accepts the account of the fortuitous ˜nd as described in the text (ZA 91 [2001] 122–23).

One Line Short

clear from Rassam’s ˜nds in the NB levels98 of the temple complex. These ˜nds included PreSargonic and Sargonic vases (some of which showed signs of repair—recall the pivot holes on the SGT), a votive statue of Ik¿n-†amas of Mari (ED III), a †ar-kali-sarri mace-head, monolith fragments of Manist¿su, and a whetstone of Tukultÿ-Mer, king of Hana, among others.99 The abundance of these antiquities led Walker to conclude that the Ebabbar served as a local treasury or museum during the NB period.100 However, there is no better witness to this conclusion than the imagery on the SGT itself, which, as we shall see, bespeaks a close acquaintance with a wide array of antiquities dating from the third and second millennia. It may be that the Ebabbar priests, with some poetic license, composed a story around an antique already in their possession, such as an OB plaque, perhaps similar—in shape if not content—to the OB terracotta plaque of a bull-man, the adjunct of †amas, excavated by Scheil in 1894.101 In so doing, the priests would have been compelled to explain the disappearance of the old statue while providing a set of circumstances under which the fashioning of a new cult statue was theologically permissible. Nabonidus’ providential discovery of a Nebuchadnezzar stela, depicting an image of the entu priestess and providing the proper cultic justi˜cation for the reinstatement of her o¯ce, is an obvious parallel. It

98. The catalogue of the Babylonian tablets in the British Museum reveals that Rassam’s excavations were primarily con˜ned to the NB levels of the temple complex and that he “hardly penetrated” the OB levels (G. van Driel, “The British Museum ‘Sippar’ Collection: Babylonia 1882–1893,” ZA 79 [1989] 110). 99. Excavations, 111–12. 100. Excavations, 111. F. Joannès adds that the ancient inscriptions may also have served a pedagogical purpose as Neo-Babylonian scribes, particularly in Nabonidus’ court, were called upon to reproduce and mimic third-and secondmillennium texts (“Les temples de Sippar et leurs trésors à l’époque néo-babylonienne,” RA 86 [1992] 163). 101. V. Scheil, Une saison de fouilles à Sippar, Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie orientale du Caire 1 (Cairo: L’Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1902), 86 no. 9; see also Seidl, ZA 91 (2001) 122–23, 129–30.

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED

43

is in this regard that I believe the recent argument put forth by Seidl—that ˜nds such as the OB plaque excavated by Scheil corroborate the claim of a fortuitous ˜nd and argue against the suspicion of a fraus pia102—misses the point; for the fact that the ˜rst-millennium priests of the Ebabbar had access to, and indeed were familiar with, images of the long-ago past, may actually have lent credence to their fabricated account. Returning to the inscription, Nabû-nadin-sumi fashioned the new statue with gold and lapis lazuli and ritually brought it to life (mÿs pî) on the bank of the Euphrates, in Ea’s temple, Ekarzagina, in Babylon; this “mouth-washing” ceremony included oˆerings of sacri˜cial oxen and sheep, as well as honey, wine and ˘our (iv 12–34). The sangû priest was duly rewarded for his eˆorts as he was presented with a gift of 1 sila of bread, 1 sila of beer and a garden plot within the NewCity sector of Babylon—the very same ancient oˆerings that Eulmas-sakin-sumi bestowed upon his forefather, Ekur-suma-usarsi (iv 40–53). Most importantly, Nabû-apla-iddina established extensive oˆerings of meat, ˜sh, vegetables, ˘our, and beer for †amas, Aya, and Bunene, specifying that the sangû priest receive half of the king’s share of all incomes and dues as well as an additional two shares corresponding to those alloted to two erib-bÿtis (iv 54–v 8; v 28–38). But Nabû-nadinsumi would receive yet more still. In gratitude for the priest’s eˆorts to resurrect the cult and in tacit acknowledgment of the ancient prerogatives of his o¯ce, Nabû-apla-iddina further stipulated that the sangû priest would receive a considerable meat disbursement, as well as two shares of various foodstuˆs derived from the erib-bÿti’s and butcher’s prebends (v 8–27).103 The king’s largess extended to providing the sangû priest with garments for †amas, Aya, and Bunene as well as to specifying the days and garment oˆerings of the lubustu ceremony (v 39–vi 13). After the description and granting of the entitlement, there follows the requisite contractually

binding legal phraseology typical of kudurrus. So that there would be “no claim,” the original was witnessed, sealed, and dated. Presumably, the stone tablet was based on a clay original executed in Babylon on the 20th of Nisannu, 31st year of Nabû-apla-iddina, as the text states that the tablet was “sealed” on said date before ˜ve prominent witnesses with a “copy of the royal seal of administration”104—the seal of the o¯ce of the king used in the granting of entitlements (vi 14–31). Finally, the inscription ends with a standard list of prohibitions and curses against anyone who reduces, re-allocates, or otherwise changes the oˆerings and prebends herewith established by Nabû-aplaiddina (vi 32–55). The literary style of the narrative portion of the text is unique to the highly legalistic formulary of the kudurru corpus, the important exception being the well-known narrative of the Nebuchadnezzar I kudurru, BBSt., no. 6, of which the SGT is reminiscent. The purpose of the narrative is not to recount the history of the Ebabbar for the sake of poetics, but to legitimate the temple’s claim to revenues and privileges through established historical precedent and to point out that the temple had been unduly stripped of those rights during less fortunate times. The language of the narrative is merely the appropriate vehicle for the delivery of that message. This theme of precedence is echoed in the prebendary portion of the text, as is suggested by the act of conferring upon Nabû-nadin-sumi the very same modest oˆerings that Eulmas-sakin-sumi bestowed upon his forefather. Surely this is a symbolic gesture that acknowledges the perpetuity of the sangû’s claim to certain privileges—that speci˜c incomes are an inalienable part of the o¯ce. Similarly, the “discovery” of a model of †amas’s image, complete with appurtenances, serves to bridge the gap with the past, suggesting some degree of continuity between the lost and the newly fashioned statues.

102. Seidl, ZA 91 (2001) 129–30. 103. See the commentary to iv 46f. in the text edition below.

104. gabrê kunuk sarri sa sipreti (vi 30–31). See Brinkman, RLA 6 (1980–83) 270.

44

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

Relative Timeline for the Events Recorded in the Sun-God Tablet of Nabû-apla-iddina and Clay Mold BM 91002 Adad-apla-iddina, 1069–1049

Beginning of Sutian attacks, de˜lement of the Ebabbar, and disappearance of the statue of †amas.

Simbar-sipak, 1026–1009

Unsuccessful search for the image of †amas; the sun-disk is enshrined and regular oˆerings are established for it. Regular oˆerings cease owing to hardship and famine. Regular oˆerings re-established at the request of Ekur-suma-usarsi, the sangû priest; 1 sila of bread, 1 sila of beer, along with a garden plot in the New-City sector of Babylon.

Kassu-nadin-ahhe, 1008–1006 Eulmas-sakin-sumi, 1005–989

Nabû-apla-iddina, 887–855

Sutians overthrown; Nabû-nadin-sumi, the sangû priest of Sippar, descendent of Ekursuma-usarsi; presents Nabû-apla-iddina with a clay model of the image of †amas “found” on the western bank of the Euphrates. Nabûnadin-sumi is commissioned to fashion a new cult statue based on the model. Nabû-aplaiddina fully restores the cult, establishing generous oˆerings of meat, ˜sh, vegetables, ˘our, and beer; the sangû priest is to receive a large portion of all dues and revenues. Additionally, the sangû priest receives the symbolic gift of 1 sila of bread, 1 sila of beer, and a garden plot in the New-City sector of Babylon—the same modest oˆerings Eulmas-sakin-sumi granted to his forefather, Ekur-suma-usarsi. Nabû-aplaiddina sets the dates and garment oˆerings for the lubustu ceremony.

Nabonidus, 555–539

Proposed date for the manufacture of the terracotta coˆer BM 91004 and clay mold BM 91002, as well as for the repair of the SGT. The inscription on the reverse of BM 91002 serves as an NB ammendment to lubustu oˆerings.

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED

The Relief The essential theme of the narrative, the establishment of legitimacy through historical precedent, ˜nds its visual counterpart in the relief portion of the tablet. The designers of the tablet deemed the reinforcement of this theme a great necessity, for they went to considerable lengths to reproduce archaic iconography and style. The combination of these older elements with newer ones gives the piece vitality, while still maintaining the desired degree of orthodoxy. The composite image must have been readily accessible only to the initiate, as the ancient designers found it necessary to attach three explicatory captions. The generally ˜ne workmanship of the low-relief scene ˜nds its complement in the ˜nely engraved cuneiform of the inscription. However, the detailing of the individual features is not uniform; while certain elements—the deity’s face, the Ionic volutes, the palm column, the stool, and throne base—re˘ect a careful attention to detail, others— the faces and gowns of the ˜gures, the throne itself, and the canopy—are portrayed in a more schematic, stylized fashion. The Approaching Figures The left side of the relief is dominated by three small ˜gures approaching a stool—an oversized version of that frequently encountered in Mitannian and early Middle Assyrian seals of the 14th century, where it is held aloft by two adjuncts, either bull-men, gri¯ns, or nude heroes, and supports the winged solar disk.105 The ˜rst ˜gure leads

105. D. Matthews, Principles of Composition in Near Eastern Glyptic of the Later Second Millennium B.C., Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica 8 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 108–10, and nos. 454–60, 463, 465–67; see also Seidl, ZA 91 (2001) 123–24 for the identi˜cation of this object as a stool, rather than a table or altar, as well as for additional examples. Seidl observes that while the motif of the solar disk supported by two adjuncts disappears from the glyptic at the end of the 14th century, it persists in other media, e.g., a 9th century relief from Tell Halaf, and so this theme may still have been prevalent at the time of Simbar-sipak’s installation of the solar disk (Seidl, ZA 91 [2001] 124–25).

45

the second with his right hand while grasping the stool with his left; the middle ˜gure raises his right hand to his face in a gesture of supplication or “pious greeting;”106 the third and ˜nal ˜gure raises both hands in similar greeting. This image is highly reminiscent of the presentation scenes found in the glyptic of the Sargonic through Old Babylonian periods. But the presentation scene is most clearly recognized as a hallmark of the Ur III period, and it was during this time that the scene was standardized. In the typical Ur III presentation scene an interceding goddess is in lead position, introducing a worshipper before a seated deity or dei˜ed king. 107 As pointed out by Collon, the worshipper is invariably shavenheaded, beardless, and wears a fringed robe.108 In a gesture similar to the one depicted on the SGT, the interceding goddess grasps the left hand of the worshipper with her right and the spare hands of both ˜gures are raised. Although, as a general rule, the Ur III presentation scene conformed to the template described here, signi˜cant variations in the imagery did exist. I. J. Winter has shown that such variations often re˘ected the owner’s position within the Ur III bureaucratic hierarchy.109 Indeed, there exists a relatively small group of seals, belonging mainly to prominent individuals, which diverge markedly from the standard Ur III repertoire in that they include two interceding deities—one who leads the worshipper by the hand and one who stands behind him with both hands raised in supplication. Of this group of

106. I.e., kiri4 su—gál literally ‘to place the hand at the nose’. 107. Impressions, nos. 115–18. 108. Impressions, 36. 109. I. J. Winter, “Legitimation of Authority through Image and Legend: Seals Belonging to O¯cials in the Administrative Bureaucracy of the Ur III State,” in The Organization of Power: Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 46, ed. M. Gibson and R. Biggs (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1987), 69–106; I. J. Winter, “The King and the Cup: Iconography of the Royal Presentation Scene on Ur III Seals,” in Insight through Images: Studies in Honor of Edith Porada, BiMes 21, ed. M. Kelly-Buccellati (Malibu: Undena Publications, 1986), 253–68.

46

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

Fig. 9. Buchanan, Early Near Eastern Seals, no. 619. seals, at least six can be positively identi˜ed by their legends; a scribe,110 a royal courier (rá-gaba to †ulgi),111 a sukkal (Igi-anakezu, the sukkal of †u-Suåen),112 a sabra in the service of the sakkanakku of Umma (Ur-saga),113 while two are attributed to ensis: the seal of Gudea, ensi of Lagas,114 and the ˜nely engraved, albeit problematic, seal belonging to {ashamer, Ur-Namma’s ensi of Iskun-Suåen 115 (˜gs. 9–14 respectively). 116 Evi-

110. B. Buchanan, Early Near Eastern Seals in the Yale Babylonian Collection (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981), no. 619. Note also Buchanan, Early Near Eastern Seals, no. 615; the name and profession are illegible on this sealing, but this individual was in the service of Ur-sulpae, sukkal-mah. 111. Buchanan, Early Near Eastern Seals, no. 639. 112. L. Legrain, UE 10 no. 433. 113. Buchanan, Early Near Eastern Seals, no. 562. Similarly, see L. Speleers, Catalogue des intailles et empreintes orientales des Musées royaux de cinquantenaire (Brussels: Vromant & Cie., 1917), no. 606. 114. L. Delaporte, Musée du Louvre, Catalogue des cylindres orientaux I, fouilles et missions (Paris: Hachette, 1920), no. T. 108 (=Impressions, no. 531). 115. D. Collon, Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum. Cylinder Seals II (London: British Museum, 1982), no. 469 (= Impressions, no. 532). This seal may represent a late forgery; Winter has noted the anomalies: “. . . depth and hard edge of cutting; lack of cup in the king’s hand; odd chair with high, curved back, and simple lines for seat and front legs, but fully-modeled bull’s legs behind.” Winter, in Organization of Power, 73–74 n. 18.

dently, these individuals were considered to be of such high rank that their seals warranted the inclusion of two interceding deities. Possibly, the leading deity represents a personal god(dess) and the rear deity a generic protective spirit d lama—a hypothesis that would account for the Gudea seal, in which Gudea’s personal god Ningiszida introduces him to Enki. This variation on the Ur III presentation scene is identical to the depiction of the three ˜gures on the SGT, the only exception being that the leading goddess of the seal is replaced by a human ˜gure on the tablet. It seems likely, therefore, that the designers of the SGT had in their possession, or were at least aware of, third-millennium seals of this variety, after which they modeled the scene

116. The high correspondence between seals of this type and prominent members of the Ur III bureaucracy has also been observed by Haussperger, who notes “Soweit wir ein derartiges Rollsiegel, bzw. seine Abrollung, durch die Legende einem bestimmten Besitzer zuordnen können, ist es einem bestimmten Personenkreis, nämlich hohen Beamten wie DUB.SAR, SUKKAL und SANGA bzw. Stadtfürsten vorbehalten.” M. Haussperger, Die Einführungsszene: Entwicklung eines mesopotamischen Motivs von der altakkadischen bis zum Ende der altbabylonischen Zeit, Münchener UniversitätsSchriften Philosophische Fakultät 12 (München: Pro˜l Verlag, 1991), 73.

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED

47

Fig. 10. Buchanan, Early Near Eastern Seals, no. 639.

Fig. 11. Legrain, UE 10 no. 433. on the tablet.117 The adaptation of this motif for the SGT had the advantage of providing an unmis-

takably archaic image in accord with the overarching theme of the tablet. In all likelihood, the

117. It is also possible that the artists based their image on earlier, Sargonic presentation scenes which similarly depict three ˜gures. However, these scenes are less standardized and, in the depictions that are most similar to the SGT scene, the rear deity often carries a bucket (e.g., M. Metzger, Königs-

thron und Gottesthron, AOAT 15 [Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1985], vol. 2, nos. 478, 486; see also Haussperger, Die Einführungsszene, 73 and n. 279).

48

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

Fig. 12. Buchanan, Early Near Eastern Seals, no. 562.

Fig. 13. Delaporte, Museé du Louvre, Catalogue des cylindres orientaux I, fouilles et missions, no. T. 108. Reproduced after Impressions, no. 531.

Fig. 14. Collon, Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum. Cylinder Seals II, no. 469. Reproduced after Impressions, no. 532. Reproduced Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum.

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED

initial and middle ˜gures on the relief are Nabûnadin-sumi and Nabû-apla-iddina respectively. Seidl, it must be noted, has rejected the identi˜cation with Nabû-apla-iddina, observing that the medial ˜gure’s dress does not correspond to the traditional royal costume encountered on contemporaneous kudurrus118 and going so far as to point out that the beard is not as long as the one worn by Nabû-apla-iddina in the scene of BBSt., no. 28; rather Seidl sees in this ˜gure an unidenti˜ed worshipper.119 However, these objections are mitigated to a considerable degree when the archaizing character of the image is taken into account; clearly, the choice of dress is in˘uenced by the traditional presentation scene (discussed below), and one cannot reasonably insist that the king wear a ninth-century garment in a third-millennium scene. It follows that the diˆerences between the SGT and BBSt., nos. 28, 29, in this regard, are merely a function of diˆerences in context and motivation. Further, the mere fact that the designers of the image chose to employ a scene of this type—one often reserved for high-ranking o¯cials, signi˜cantly, in the case of the SGT, with a slightly larger image scale aˆorded the central ˜gure vis-à-vis the leading ˜gure—is again suggestive of an identi˜cation with Nabû-apla-iddina. It must also be stressed that the relief and the narrative form two halves of one whole, that there is a correspondence between the characters of the image and the characters of the narrative who participate in the entitlement. This is certainly true of the contemporaneous kudurru BBSt., no. 28, which depicts both Nabû-apla-iddina, grantor of the endowment, as well as one Nabû-aplaiddina, son of Atnayya, recipient of the endowment.120 The choice of this third-millennium motif allows for the inclusion of both the king and the sangû priest, the two representative parties of the transaction. Nabû-nadin-sumi, the celebrated sangû priest, who was instrumental in procuring the clay model and in fashioning the cult statue

118. BBSt., nos. 28, 29. 119. Seidl, ZA 91 (2001) 130. 120. Note also Meli-sipak, MDP 10, 87–94, pls. 11–13; see Slanski’s recent discussion on this point, JCS 52 (2000) 103–5.

49

of †amas, not only plays the role of intercessor between Nabû-apla-iddina and †amas—as the Ebabbar was his domain and he its highest priest—but he also appears as the recipient of the endowment on behalf of his temple. Frankfort has noted that the attire of the ˜gures on the relief dates back to the third millennium as well, claiming that it ˜nds its counterpart in the stele of Ur-Namma.121 Although this is true to a certain extent, since the ˜gures of both monuments wear simple wrap-around garments, there are signi˜cant diˆerences that bear witness to the true age of the SGT image. As described by Collon, in the third-millennium presentation scenes the interceding goddess generally wears a vertically striped dress with a double border and her divinity is indicated by a headdress consisting of a single pair of horns. Only rarely does she wear a ˘ounced garment, but when she does, she is adorned with multiple horns.122 The tradition connecting striped dresses with a single pair of divine horns is maintained on the Gudea seal, but violated on the {ashamer seal, where the second goddess (behind the worshipper) wears a striped dress and a headdress of multiple horns. The goddess of the SGT scene mimics the fashion of the {ashamer seal, but with some peculiar innovations. Her garment is not striped with straight lines, as in the third-millennium scenes, but with parallel wavy lines. The lack of horizontal lines indicates that the garment is not ˘ounced.123 Moreover, her horns are depicted in true pro˜le—a glaring anachronism for Ur III style, since divine headdresses were only depicted in true pro˜le beginning with the Old Babylonian period. Either 121. H. Frankfort, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient, 4th ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970), 202. 122. The conventions dictating the choice of robe and headdress are explained by Collon in Impressions, 36 (Ur III), 44 (early OB). Compare Impressions, nos. 114, 115 and the goddess on the Ur-Namma stele (Frankfort, Art and Architecture, no. 110) with Impressions, nos. 117, 118, 119. 123. An inspection of a cast of the tablet in the Harvard Semitic Museum reveals that the dress of the goddess is not ˘ounced, despite the wavy pattern. Note also that both goddesses (on the tablet and on the {ashamer seal) wear striped garments without a double border, see Impressions, nos. 114, 115. Collon notes that the striped dress of the interceding goddess usually has a double border (Impressions, 36).

50

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

the designers of the tablet were ignorant of these conventions or they were willing to overlook them in exchange for visual balance, as the wavy-lined dress and horned headdress of the goddess on the far left of the image correspond very well with the ˘ounced garment and true-pro˜le headdress of †amas on the far right. Nabû-apla-iddina is depicted wearing a doublebordered robe that exposes his right shoulder and a headdress that comes to a dull point. UrNamma and {ammurapi wear similar robes on their steles and abundant parallels to this garment can be found in seals, where the fringed version is a hallmark of the worshipper in the presentation scene.124 And, while in the typical Ur III presentation scene the worshipper is generally clean-shaven, bare-headed and occasionally bald, exemplars from the Old Akkadian and Old Babylonian periods do allow for bearded (regularly in O. Akk.125) and capped (Larsa-OB126) worshippers. The king’s headdress represents a ˜rst-millennium innovation that is ˜rst attested in the reign of Nabû-apla-iddina. According to Brinkman and Dalley, the tasseled version of this crown (depicted on BBSt., no. 28, year 20 of Nabû-aplaiddina) replaced the older rectangular crown with feathered crest.127 Nabû-nadin-sumi’s attire does not, however, ˜nd its parallel in the third-millennium presentation scenes, although this may not be altogether surprising given the priest’s anomalous presence in the scene. His garment is of the wrap-around variety, but it covers both shoulders and is tied with a sash at the waist. This robe is contemporaneous with the tablet as evidenced by the Marduk-zakirsumi kudurru on which the king wears a similar,

124. See Impressions, nos. 114–118, 532; Haussperger, Die Einführungsszene, 296–97. 125. Haussperger, Die Einführungsszene, 134. 126. Haussperger, Die Einführungsszene, 221; Haussperger cites at least one Ur III scene in which the worshipper wears both a cap and beard (Die Einführungsszene, 174 [= Buchanan, Early Near Eastern Seals, no. 588]), also note a bearded and capped king in the Ur-Namma stele. 127. Brinkman and Dalley, ZA 78 (1988) 94, with additional ˜rst-millennium, tasseled and tassel-less, examples of conical crowns of this type.

but more detailed, garment.128 Both here and in the portrayal of Nabû-nadin-sumi the sash emphasizes the curvature of the lower-back and the protuberance of the chest; however, this feature should not be regarded simply as a trapping of fashion, but rather as a harbinger of the Neo-Babylonian style of ˜gural modeling. The Sun Disk The most signi˜cant innovation in this revised presentation scene is that the three ˜gures do not approach the seated deity directly, but advance towards a stool. There is a tactile element in the SGT scene that is entirely absent in its conventional, third-millennium form; for instead of raising his left hand in pious greeting as one would expect from earlier exemplars, Nabû-nadin-sumi grasps the oversized stool. The stool is not level; its left legs are raised ever so slightly, suspended from above with ropes and carefully guided by the hand of Nabû-nadin-sumi. Upon it is an elaborate, Ionic volute pedestal bearing a disk with a four-pointed star and three wavy-lines emanating from between each point—an image that de˜es interpretation as anything other than the sun disk, the long-standing symbol of †amas.129 As with other elements of the relief (e.g., the depiction of †amas, see below) the disk should be interpreted as rotated 90o into the plane of the relief, i.e., the face of the solar disk is actually parallel to the front of †amas’s shrine. The stool and the disk are of such an immense size that the three approaching ˜gures are completely dwarfed by it. Clearly, the inclusion of these elements bespeaks a more contemporaneous in˘uence, the Neo-Babylonian period as a whole demonstrating a marked preference for emblematic forms and divine symbols over their anthropomorphic counterparts. Similarly, the appearance of ropes in connection with the solar disk is reminiscent

128. A. Parrot, Nineveh and Babylon, trans. S. Gilbert and J. Emmons (London: Thames and Hudson, 1961), no. 217. 129. Attested since the Sargonic period, e.g., MDP 1, pl. 10; see U. Seidl, “Göttersymbole und -attribute, A. Archäologisch,” RLA 3 (1957–71) 485.

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED

of Middle- and Neo-Assyrian scenes in which two adjuncts hold what are apparently ropes that stream down from a winged-solar disk.130 Brinkman has correctly connected the sun disk of the relief with the object (niphu) of the inscription erected by Simbar-sipak in the eleventh century.131 However, the passage describing how Simbar-sipak employed the symbol—and how that passage corresponds to the relief—remains subject to debate. In accord with his interpretation of the relief, Brinkman understood the passage, nipha sa pan †amas usatrisamma (i 18–19), as referring to the suspension of the stool and disk by ropes lowered from the canopy.132 Similarly, Jacobsen translated the passage as “he had the sundisc [sic] (that is) in front of †amas roofed over.”133 These understandings are both based on the †-stem of tarasu(m); as Brinkman observes, a stem, which is “most commonly employed in passages concerned with the construction of roofs of buildings, would not be unexpected if one compares the mode of support for the disk shown in the picture on the tablet.”134 Slanski, however, has recently challenged this interpretation, noting that “the sun disk does not appear to be supported by as much as suspended from the ropes from up above, and the comparison to roof construction is not altogether satisfying, especially as sutrusu connotes the idea of extending something outward or upward, not downward.”135 Slanski understands the verb in its basic meaning “to extend,” i.e., “he had the sun disk that (is) before †amas extended.”136 And, re130. E.g., Impressions, nos. 340, 341; see R. Du Mesnil du Buisson, Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’empire romain, Nouvelles Études sur les Dieux et les Mythes de Canaan 33 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973) ˜g. 46 for a Hittite rendering of this scene that clearly shows these elements to be ropes. 131. Brinkman, RA 70 (1976) 183–84. 132. Brinkman, RA 70 (1976) 183–84. 133. T. Jacobsen, “The Graven Image,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P. D. Miller, Jr., P. D. Hanson, S. D. McBride (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 20. 134. Brinkman, RA 70 (1976) 183–84; see AHw. sub tarasu(m) † 10. 135. Slanski, JCS 52 (2000) 111. 136. Slanski, JCS 52 (2000) 111.

51

garding the slightly raised stool, she views the sun disk as in the process of being removed, i.e., “that we interpret the sun disk as being raised, and that that this motion of the sun disk can be seen to re˘ect the new cultic reality: with the cult image restored to its proper place in the sanctuary, the sun disk is being removed from the center of cultic activity . . . now that the restored image (salmu) of †amas can be reinstalled in the temple, the makeshift symbolic representation of the divine, the sun disk (niphu), can be removed.”137 And along similar lines Seidl reads the image as possibly depicting the moment “als er [Nabûnadin-sumi] dem Sonnengott ‘seinen Wohnsitz richtete,’ indem er das ältere Symbol mitsamt der Säulenkonstruktion beiseite schiebt und den Blick auf das wiedererstandene Bild des †amas freigibt.”138 As attractive as the interpretations of Slanski and Seidl are at ˜rst glance, I must disagree. The image does not depict the moment when the sun disk was being removed, but rather, the moment when it was being installed in its new and proper location before the Sun-god. The semantic di¯culties with sutrusu all but disappear once it is understood that the verb does not refer to how the sun disk is depicted on the relief, but only to Simbar-sipak’s installation—the two need not be identical. I suggest that Simbar-sipak, enshrined (sutrusu) 139 the sun disk, for lack of a proper image of the god, making daily oˆerings to it as he would to a cult statue, salamsu u simatÿsu la ÿmur-ma nipha sa pan †amas usatrisam-ma sattukkasu ukÿn-ma “because he did not see his image and his attributes, he enshrined the sun disk, which is (now) before †amas, and established regular oˆerings (for it) . . .” (i 16–20). That

137. Slanski, JCS 52 (2000) 112; see also Slanski’s comments in The Babylonian Entitlement narûs, 220. 138. Seidl, ZA 91 (2001) 130. 139. For further discussion of sutrusu and the alternative possibility that the verb in this context may mean ‘to place, set up, install (often said of cultic objects),’ rather than ‘to roof over,’ i.e., ‘to enshrine,’ see the commentary to i 19 in the text edition below. The verb may be understood in either sense without aˆecting the essential understanding of the passage and relief oˆered here.

52

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

is, Simbar-sipak installed the sun disk in †amas’s shrine; only when the cult statue of †amas was fashioned in Nabû-apla-iddina’s reign was the sun disk removed and replaced by the newly consecrated statue—the sun disk, his symbol, now being placed appropriately before the seated Sun-god. Hence, the “roo˜ng over” or “setting up” implied by sutrusu refers to the original placement of the sun disk under the canopy or enclosure of the Sun-god’s shrine.140 Remarkably, a rare motif on a Kassite seal that shares much with kudurru iconography depicts just such a scene: the symbols of a horse head upon temple-façade base and bird on a pole are both enclosed within a canopied shrine (˜g. 15).141 And, although there is no reference to a shrine, a Kassite votive inscription describes the dedication of an object, PA.DINGIR.RA, to Adad, probably a thunderbolt as three three-pronged thunderbolts are inscribed on the prism—important for our purposes is that this object was established as a substitute, presumably in lieu of the cult statue: a-na PA.DINGIR.RA im-qí [a-na] pu-hi [i]d-di-ma “he poured a libation for the Thunderbolt, he established it as a substitute.”142 The SGT image captures the moment after the sun disk and its stool have been extracted from the shrine and the act of lowering them into place

140. For the verb tarasu(m) in connection with the awning of a throne(-dias) of a deity, note: eli DN . . . sul¿lsu atrus-ma ukÿn taransu “I stretched its roof (of the paramahu over Marduk) and set its awning in place” (Streck Asb., 148 i 31; also Bauer Asb. 1, pl. 57 81–2–4, 212: 6; Thompson Esarh., pl. 14 i 37 (Asb.), cited in CAD T sub tarasu A mng. 2d [in press]). 141. Matthews, Principles of Composition, no. 526 (= E. Porada, The Collection of the Pierpont Morgan Library. Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in North American Collections I, The Bollingen Series 14 [Washington: The Bollingen Foundation, 1948], pl. 81 no. 588e), see also p. 81 for discussion. 142. E. Sollberger, in Essays in Memory of E. A. Speiser, AOS 53, ed. W. W. Hallo (New Haven: American Oriental Society), 193: 17–20, 195. Note the following OB year name: mu A-bi-e-su-uh lugal-e nim-gír nim-gír-a kug-sig17 kug-babbarbi-da-ke4 dIskur Bábilimki-ma-ka gi4-bi-a-ke4 bí-si-in-dím-ma “year in which Abÿ-esuh, the king, fashioned anew ˘ashing lightning bolts in gold and silver for Adad of Babylon” (Abÿesuh “aa2”). M. Sigrist and P. Damerow, eds., Mesopotamian Year Names, Neo-Sumerian and Old Babylonian Year Formulae, http://cdli.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/Yearnames/yn_index.htm (Berlin: Max Planck Institute, 9/25/02).

before the god is nearly complete, Nabû-nadinsumi gently guiding the stool into its new, proper position. The newly consecrated cult statue has assumed its proper place within its shrine and Nabû-apla-iddina is introduced into the presence of symbol and deity in commemoration of his pious conduct in restoring the cult that had long been defunct. The inscription makes note of the fact that Simbar-sipak enshrined the sun disk, in lieu of a statue of the deity, precisely because it was out of the ordinary, not belonging to the regular cultic practice. It was, in essence, a noteworthy occurrence. Alternatively, arguing that the relief represents the moment just prior to the removal of the solar disk is to claim that the image, as portrayed, immortalizes a scene that is inappropriate from a cultic perspective—a claim that would indeed be di¯cult to accept. Given that the left leg of the stool is raised oˆ the ground by only the slightest of margins, and that doubtless the artists and theologians desired the image to be explicit, it is certainly preferable to interpret the disk and its stool as being depicted essentially in their proper places. Further, a “removal” of the sun disk, as opposed to a re-positioning, suggests that the sun disk itself was improper or irrelevant as a cultic object for the Sun-god. This indeed would run counter to all that we know of †amas’s cult, in which sun disks play a prominent role, and particularly in light of references from earlier periods to the “bringing of sun disks into the Ebabbar.”143 That the disk on its pedestal interrupts the intimacy 143. Note, for example, the following OB year names: mu A-bi-e-su-uh . . . as-me na4za-gìn-na su-nir gal-gal-la ù alan kugsig17-ga . . . É-babbar-ra i-ni-in-ku4-ra “year in which Abÿ-esuh . . . brought sun disks of lapis-lazuli, great emblems and a statue of gold . . . into the Ebabbar” (Abÿ-esuh “T”); mu as-me gal-galla na4du8-si-a-ke4 su-nir-ra ì-mah-es-a É-babbar-ra-sè in-ne-enku4-ra “year in which (Ammÿ-ditana) brought into the Ebabbar great sun disks of dusû-stone as majestic emblems” (Ammÿditana 13); mu as-me ì-mah-a su-nir-ra ud-gim dalla íb-ta-è-a É-babbar-ra-sè in-ne-en-ku4-ra “year in which (Ammÿ-saduqa) brought into the Ebabbar magni˜cent sun disks, emblems shining forth like the light of the day” (Ammÿ-saduqa 6); mu Sa-am-su-di-ta-na lugal-e as-me didli-a na4du8-si-a-ke4 su-nirra ud-gim ì-zalag-gi-es-a na4za-gìn-na kug-sig17 hus-a kug-luha-bi-da-ke4 su-a mah-bi íb-ta-an-du7-us-a bí-in-dím-ma-àm dUtu en an-ta gál-la-as nam-lugal-a-ni bí-íb-gu-la-as É-babbar-ra-sè

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED

53

Fig. 15. Porada, The Collection of the Pierpont Morgan Library. Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in North American Collections I, pl. 81 no. 588e. between worshipper and deity is not at all unexpected in an age that was increasingly concerned with the symbolic representation of gods, sacred emblems, and other cultic paraphernalia that frequently disrupt the immediacy the presentation scene once conveyed in its third-millennium form. Indeed, this trend is re˘ected in the local city pantheons of the ˜rst millennium where the dei˜cation of cult objects plays a major role, much more so than in earlier periods. Myers, for instance, details the incorporation of cultic paraphernalia associated with †amas into the NB pantheon of Sippar, none of which are attested for the OB period,144 while Beaulieu discusses six dei˜ed cult objects in the pantheon of NB Uruk.145 Moreover,

in-ne-en-ku4-ra “year in which Samsu-ditana, the king, fashioned various sun disks of dusû-stone, emblems shining like the day, adorned with lapis-lazuli, ˜ery gold, and re˜ned silver, adorned them magni˜cently and brought them into the Ebabbar for †amas the lord who resides above to make great his kingship” (Samsu-ditana 7). Sigrist and Damerow, eds., Mesopotamian Year Names. 144. Speci˜cally, the Divine Ziggurat, d(É-)Ziq(qur)rat (= Ekunankuga), Divine Chariot, dNarkabtu, and Divine Standard, dUrigallu. J. Myers, “The Sippar Pantheon: A Diachronic Study” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 2002). 145. I.e., the Divine Chariot, dNarkabtu, Divine Staˆ, d{utaru, Divine Quiver, dIspatu, Divine Star-shaped Branding Iron, dKakkabtu, Divine dUrigallu-Standard, and Divine dZaqiptu-Standard. P.-A. Beaulieu, The Pantheon of Uruk During the Neo-Babylonian Period, Cuneiform Monographs 23 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2003), 351–55.

Neo-Babylonian glyptic attests scenes that are reminiscent of the one portrayed on the SGT, with a worshipper assuming a posture of pious supplication before the symbol of a deity rather than before his anthropomorphic form,146 or, more relevant for our purposes, a worshipper paying homage before a seated deity with the god’s symbol intervening between the two.147 †amas on His Throne The right side of the relief is dominated by the imposing image of †amas enthroned within his shrine. There can be little doubt that here one is confronted with a depiction, albeit stylized, of the newly fashioned cult statue commissioned by Nabû-apla-iddina. From the modern perspective, the designers of the relief could not have chosen an image more representative of archaic iconography and style; for the portrayal of †amas would 146. E.g., Impressions, no. 771; Porada, Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern Seals, pl. 119 nos. 781e, 782, 784; A. Moortgat, Vorderasiatische Rollsiegel (Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 1966), no. 754; L. Delaporte, Catalogue des cylindres orientaux et des cachets assyro-babyloniens, perses et syro-cappadociens de la Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1910), nos. 572–94, 598–603 [stamp seals]; see also Matthews, Principles of Composition, no. 197 [Kassite]. 147. E.g., CS, pl. 36i (probably a spade rather than a censor); also note Impressions, no. 554 [NA], and Matthews, Principles of Composition, nos. 502, 503(?), 504 (deity standing within a shrine) [all MA].

54

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

appear to be based directly on the stele of {ammurabi and comparable scenes from the second and third millennia.148 In both the stele of {ammurabi and the SGT †amas is depicted in a nearly identical manner, with shoulders parallel to the picture plane, the right arm extended with the measuring implements placed between the thumb and open palm, the left hand clenched in a ˜st, and barefoot, with the right foot in front of the left. Likewise, in both depictions, the god wears a ˘ounced garment, a divine headdress of four horns, and the same long beard and chignon.149 In so portraying the deity, the designers of the relief purposefully introduced elements re˘ecting an archaic style that were at odds with the Babylonian artistic devices of the ˜rst millennium. Particularly anachronistic is the extension of both shoulders parallel to the picture plane, which is in marked contrast to two of the three approaching ˜gures who are depicted in true pro˜le, the conventional style of ˜gural representation in ˜rstmillennium Babylonia—and one which apparently begins with Nabû-apla-iddina’s reign, as kudurru BBSt., no. 28 (year 20) represents the ˜rst attestation of this. And, while the measuring implements are still common divine attributes in the NeoBabylonian period, the deity now grasps them in a closed ˜st.150 Thus, the depiction of the deity serves ostensibly to corroborate the story that the new statue was fashioned after an ancient, allegedly discovered model. Yet despite all the eˆorts to archaize the image, clues to its true date remain. Following a more contemporary style, †amas’s robe has been altered to now extend over

148. See also P. O. Harper, J. Aruz, F. Tallon, eds., The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1992), no. 117. 149. The two ˜gures diˆer only in that the deity on the {ammurabi stele has sun-rays emanating from his shoulders, he wears two necklaces, his garment lacks a wavy pattern, and it reveals his right shoulder. This last element is, no doubt, a vestige of the third-millennium presentation scene in which, as previously noted, the seated deity almost invariably wears a shoulder-revealing garment. 150. See Metzger, Königsthron und Gottesthron, vol. 1, 226–30.

the right shoulder,151 while the modeling of the deity’s face, as observed by van Buren, with its heavy brow and lids, and angled features, “betray the fact that it was the product of a much less accomplished age” than that of earlier, comparable scenes.152 Rather than placing the deity on a throne modeled after a temple façade, as was the preferred design in all periods, the artists exploited this space for still more archaic iconography; for the legs of †amas’s throne are supported by a pair of antithetically opposed dei˜ed bison-men (gud-alim/ kusarikku),153 the long-time adjuncts of †amas.154 The bison-man seems to have been enlisted into

151. The same garment is worn by deities on Kassite kudurrus. Metzger, Königsthron und Gottesthron, vol. 2, nos. 919a, 924; also note that the deity on a Middle Babylonian stele from Susa wears a similar garment (U. Seidl, Review of J. Börker-Klähn, Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen und vergleichbare Felsreliefs, Baghdader Forschungen 4 [Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1982], OrNS 55 [1986] 326). 152. van Buren, Clay Figurines, 190. 153. The general words for bison, Akk. kusarikku, Sum. alim, and gud-alim, became associated with the bull-man, or more properly, bison-man during the Sargonic period. During the second and ˜rst millennia he is also referred to by the logogram GUD.DUMU.dUTU. F. A. M. Wiggermann, Mesopotamian Protective Spirits: The Ritual Texts, Cuneiform Monographs 1 (Groningen: Styx, 1992), 174, 176 n. 10. See also M. DeJong Ellis, “An Old Babylonian Kusarikku,” in DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A: Studies in Honor of Ake W. Sjöberg, ed. H. Behrens, D. Loding, M. T. Roth (Philadelphia: University Museum, 1989), 121–29. 154. Also regarded as the symbol of Utu in Gudea Cyl. A, xxvi 4: su-nir-dUtu sag-alim-ma, “the head of the (humanfaced) bison is the standard of Utu.” Textual references connecting the bison-man with †amas may occur already in the earliest Semitic literature if the creature ÉRIN+X who plays a prominent role in the †amas myth known from ED manuscripts from Ab¿ Salabÿh and Ebla (ARET 5, 6; OIP 99, 326+ 342; e.g., [ÉREN]+ªX dUTUº [ti-bí-]ù [me]-i-la-ªmeº [ARET 5, 6 iv 6, restored after vi 1] = ÉREN+X dUTU PA.È dME.LAM [OIP 99, 326 iii 6–7] “The ÉRIN+X of †amas make visible his divine radiance”) is to be identi˜ed, as suggested by Steinkeller, with the bison-man depicted in the common Sargonic seal motif of the “Sun-god in his boat” (discussed further below). Note also the following passage from an Ebla incantation, ÉRIN+X NÁ KISAL dUTU “the ÉRIN+X creature lies in the courtyard of †amas” (Krebernik Beschwörungen, 164 x 5– 6); further, a number of economic texts from Ebla refer to gold and silver statues of ÉREN+X creatures that were fashioned with horns and tails. See P. Steinkeller, “Early Semitic

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED

the host of the Mesopotamian Mischwesen during the ED I period, when, possibly under foreign in˘uences, representations of a naturalistic, rampant bison assumed a human face.155 He often appears in the glyptic of the ED period as a combatant in contest scenes, appearing singly, in pairs, or on occasion in groups of three.156 As suggested by Wiggermann, the association of the bisonman with †amas stems, in all probability, from the bison’s natural habitat in the hilly ˘anks and mountainous regions east of Mesopotamia, “distant countries traveled only by the sun.”157 As a logical extension of this association, the bisonman came to represent the distant mountains, the place of the sun’s ascent. On several Sargonic seals †amas is depicted climbing over a pair of kneeling bison-men158—an emblematic variation of the common Sargonic motif in which †amas climbs the eastern mountains to begin his daily journey.159 During the Sargonic period the bison-man often appeared in combat scenes as the adversary of †amas,160 but gradually became drawn into †amas’s court as a vanquished foe.161 In the Ur III period the bison-man was promoted to divine status and was out˜tted with a double-horned headdress.162 By the Old Babylonian period, his

Literature and Third Millennium Seals with Mythological Motifs,” in Literature and Literary Language at Ebla, ed. P. Fronzaroli, Quaderni di Semitistica 18 (Florence: Dipartimento di liguistica, Università di Firenze, 1992), 258–66 for discussion of ÉREN+X in these contexts, references, and previous literature. 155. Wiggermann, Protective Spirits, 174; DeJong Ellis, in DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A, 125–26. 156. CS, 48; W. G. Lambert, “Trees, Snakes and Gods in Ancient Syria and Anatolia,” BSOAS 48 (1985) 447. 157. Wiggermann, Protective Spirits, 174. 158. EGA, pl. 33 no. 397; R. M. Boehmer, “Früheste altorientalische Darstellungen des Wisents,” BaM 9 (1978) 20 ˜g. 1; Steinkeller, Quaderni di Semitistica 18, 266. 159. CS, pl. 18g; pl. 19a; Impressions, nos. 102, 103. 160. EGA, pl. 8 no. 75; pl. 29 no. 339. During the Sargonic period the bison-man was also associated with Ea’s entourage (Lambert, BSOAS 48 [1985] 447). 161. CS, 161–62, 167, 171–72. Depicted at least once during the Sargonic period holding a gate-post emblem (EGA, pl. 10 no. 113). 162. CS, 171.

55

assimilation into †amas’s court was complete;163 he served primarily as standard-bearer and attendant, often depicted in symmetrical pairs,164 as is common with adjunct deities. But by the ˜rst millennium, the bison-man’s direct association with †amas was greatly diminished and he functioned more as an amorphous, apotropaic deity than as the adjunct of †amas.165 The heraldic posture of the bison-men on the SGT relief ˜nds its parallel in several secondand third-millennium seals in which deities are supported on thrones by symmetrical pairs of their adjuncts or emblematic animals. At least three Old Akkadian seals depict Istar seated on a throne supported by a pair of lions. On two of these seals the lions sit heraldically opposed and support the seat of the throne with their heads (˜gs. 16, 17);166 on the third seal the lions are heraldically opposed and rampant, bracing the sides of the throne with their front paws (˜g. 18).167 Additionally, an Ur III seal portrays two intersecting lions, functioning as diagonal struts, thereby supporting the seat of Ningirsu’s throne (˜g. 19).168 Finally, an Old Babylonian sealing depicts two “naked-heroes,” in a

163. During the OB period, the association between the two was so close that the bison-man could be depicted under the feet of the enthroned Sun-god as a means of identifying the deity. See CS, pl. 27a. 164. The bison-man was regularly envisioned as existing in pairs, rather than singularly, as revealed by the following omen: BE SAL 2 Ù.TU-ma GIM GUD.DUMU.dUTU ti-is-bu-ti LUGAL a-a-bi-sú †U-su KUR-[ád] “If a woman gives birth to two (children), and they are joined like the ‘Bull(-god), son of †amas’—the king will conquer his enemies” (Leichty Izbu, 40: 87). As assumed by Leichty, the bison-men in this omen are likely heraldically crossed (Leichty Izbu, 33 n. 10). See also DeJong Ellis, in DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A, 130; A. Green, “Beneficent Spirits and Malevolent Demons: The Iconography of Good and Evil in Ancient Assyria and Babylonia,” Visible Religion 3 (1984) 84–86. 165. As early as the OB period the bison-man served a protective function. A Mari text (ARM 21, 222: 52f.) associates the kusarikku with dLAMA (DeJong Ellis, in DUMU-E2-DUBBA-A, 128–29). For the bison-man’s role as apotropaic deity in later periods see also Green, Visible Religion 3 (1984) 84–86. 166. Metzger, Königsthron und Gottesthron, vol. 2, nos. 573 (= EGA, pl. 32 no. 384), 574 (= EGA, pl. 32 no. 389). 167. Metzger, Königsthron und Gottesthron, vol. 2, no. 575 (= EGA, pl. 32 no. 387); a recumbent lion is used as a footrest. 168. Metzger, Königsthron und Gottesthron, vol. 2, no. 701.

56

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

Fig. 16. EGA, pl. 32 no. 384.

Fig. 17. EGA, pl. 32 no. 389.

Fig. 18. EGA, pl. 32 no. 387.

Fig. 19. CS, 143 ˜g. 38. Reproduced after Metzger, Königsthron und Gottesthron, vol. 2, no. 701.

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED

57

Fig. 20. Amiet, Syria 37 (1960) 215 ˜g. 1. posture identical to that of the bull-men of the SGT, bracing the sides of Ea’s throne (˜g. 20).169 The legs of †amas’s throne are each portrayed as a series of parallel lines terminating at the seat in what may represent a face. The image cannot be resolved with absolute certainty owing to the minute yet coarse detail, but if this supposition is correct then an interpretation of this element of the image may be found in a group of Sargonic seals that depict †amas’s daily ascent. It is well known from the art and literary sources that the Mesopotamians envisioned daybreak as the Sungod ascending the eastern mountains and appearing through the doors of heaven.170 On at least one seal from this group the open doors are depicted free-standing,171 but on others attendant deities thrust the doors open in a gesture strikingly similar to that of the SGT bison-men (˜gs. 21, 22).172 Upon the doors in several seals are recumbent lions (˜gs. 23, 24),173 the purpose of which may be to give visual representation to the roaring

169. P. Amiet, “Notes sur le répertoire iconographique de Mari à l’époque du palais,” Syria 37 (1960) 215 ˜g. 1 (= Metzger, Königsthron und Gottesthron, vol. 2, no. 800A). 170. W. Heimpel, “The Sun at Night and the Doors of Heaven in Babylonian Texts,” JCS 38 (1986) 127–51. 171. CS, pl. 18g (= EGA, pl. 33 no. 393). 172. EGA, pl. 33 nos. 394, 399. See also Impressions, nos. 102, 103; EGA, pl. 33 nos. 392, 395–96, 398, 400; pl. 34 nos. 401–8, 410–12; pl. 35 nos. 413–19, 421–22, 424–25. 173. CS, pl. 18a (= EGA, pl. 34 no. 409; Impressions, no. 103); EGA, pl. 35 no. 420.

of the doors turning in their pivots.174 The image is, therefore, amenable to the suggestion that legs of the throne are actually the open doors of heaven viewed in pro˜le and that the faces on top of the doors—if this is indeed the case—are lions viewed frontally. As a whole then, the throne is symbolic of the Sun-god’s morning ascent, although the deity does not play an active role in this image. The base of the throne—a stylized scallopped pattern representing two rows of mountains175—immediately establishes the setting of the scene. This identi˜cation is further speci˜ed by the presence of a pair of bison-men, the constant adjuncts of †amas during the third and second millennia and the very embodiments of the distant eastern mountains. There, beyond the hilly ˘anks, they thrust open the doors in anticipation of †amas’s daily entry into the heavens and the lions, after Sargonic fashion, give visual representation to this thunderous event. In performing this duty, the bison-men assume a function and pose reminiscent of the heyday of their association with †amas, namely, the Sargonic through Old Babylonian periods. Yet, as has been demonstrated in regard to the employment of other archaic images in this

174. CS, 98–99; note Gudea Cyl. A, xxvi 20–21: ig-giseren-na é-a su4-ga-bi dIskur an-ta gù-nun-di-da-àm “the cedar doors that stand in the temple are Iskur roaring from heaven.” 175. Also note the use of mountains as an identi˜cation of †amas, e.g., the deity’s footrest on the stele of {ammurabi.

58

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

Fig. 21. EGA, pl. 33 no. 394.

Fig. 22. EGA, pl. 33 no. 399.

Fig. 23. EGA, pl. 34 no. 409.

Fig. 24. EGA, pl. 35 no. 420.

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED

relief, there are inconsistencies and anachronisms that belie the image’s claim to great antiquity. While the motif of †amas’s entry through the doors of heaven is a strictly Sargonic motif, the bison-man’s role as dei˜ed attendant to †amas is primarily an Old Babylonian development. As a result of this dichotomy, the bison-man is never portrayed thrusting open the gates of heaven in Sargonic seals. Additionally, when this scene is depicted on Sargonic seals with anonymous deities playing the role of door-keeper, the doors of heaven as well as the lions are always depicted length-wise, never frontally.176 †amas’s Shrine and the Captions The elements of the relief discussed thus far have been explainable in terms of thoroughly recognizable iconography, either archaic or contemporaneous, but most often a blending of the two. However, the canopy which enshrines †amas is unique and de˜es an identi˜cation with any known archaic or contemporaneous iconographic tradition; in this regard, the designers of the tablet were at ease in giving their creativity free reign. Unfortunately, an understanding of this part of the relief is hampered by the di¯culties posed by two of the explicatory captions, as a consensus regarding their interpretation has remained elusive for over a century.177 The front of the shrine consists of a column stylized to represent the trunk of a palm tree, as indicated by the pattern of overlapping palmfrond scars. The column is provided with elaborate Ionic volutes above the capital and base, which complement the pedestal of the sun disk. The rear of the shrine is represented by an unpatterned band of uniform width that arches over the deity and terminates above the column in two protomes adorned with horned headdresses. A close in-

176. Possibly, the doors are depicted width-wise on the relief in order to account for the position of †amas on his throne, i.e., parallel to the side of throne; in order that the image would be clear, it was rotated ninety degrees and extended parallel to the plane of the relief. 177. See n. 6 for previous literature.

59

spection of the image reveals a point of musculature where the deities’ torsos bend and emerge from the canopy, hence, the common interpretation that the canopy represents a dei˜ed snake with two human upper bodies.178 Each protome holds two ropes that, as previously noted, extend not to the sun disk itself, but to the stool bearing the sun disk. The three-dimensional depth implied by the overlapping pro˜les of the protomes and the two pairs of arms, suggests, as already recognized by Andrae, that the image is to be interpreted as a three-dimensional shrine rendered in pro˜le. As such, we are to understand two gods, or perhaps one with two upper bodies, and two palm columns together serving as the framework of the shrine, supporting, presumably, a baldacchino.179 Although this speci˜c structure has no parallel in the known portrayals and descriptions of shrines, a review of the individual elements is telling of its underlying in˘uences. The presence of the date palm as an architectural feature of †amas’s shrine is not unexpected when one considers the bison-man’s role as standard-bearer to †amas.180 As a common motif on OB terracotta plaques, the bison-man is depicted either alone or in antithetical pairs supporting a pole crowned with the sun disk.181 However, on several such reliefs, two antithetical ithyphallic bison-men support a date-palm trunk in lieu of a pole (˜gs. 25, 26, 27).182 The association is based 178. Jacobsen in Ancient Israelite Religion, 21, 31–32 nn. 21–24; Metzger, Königsthron und Gottesthron, vol. 1, 228– 29; Ward, Proceedings (October, 1887) 31–32; Poebel, AJSL 52 (1936) 111–12; van Buren, Clay Figurines, 190; Rashid, Berliner Jahrbuch für Vor- und Frühgeschichte 7 (1967) 301; Seidl’s dissenting view (ZA 91 [2001] 126) is discussed below. 179. “Es ist der schon angeführte ‘Baldachin,’ unter dem der Sonnengott auf der Tafel aus Sippar thront, an dem die Palmstammstütze wohl eine gebogene schwere Matte hochstützt” (W. Andrae, Das Gotteshaus und die Urfomen des Bauens im alten Orient (Berlin: Hans Schoetz & Co., 1930), 42. 180. DeJong Ellis, in DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A, 130. 181. van Buren, Clay Figurines, ˜gs. 256–57, 258 (perhaps a gate-post); Green, Visible Religion 3 (1984) 84–85. See also, T. Howard-Carter, “An Interpretation of the Sculptual Decoration of the Second Millennium Temple at Tell al-Rimah,” Iraq 45 (1983) 66–68. 182. M.-Th. Barrelet, Figurines et reliefs en terre cuite de la Mésopotamie antique (Paris: Geuthner, 1968), no. 815; A9337; A16997 (this fragmentary plaque may have been cast

60

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

Fig. 25. Barrelet, Figurines et reliefs en terre cuite de la Mésopotamie antique, no. 815. on the Sun-god’s critical role as the provider of life-giving light and the date palm as the symbol of the resulting fecundity.183 This symbolic quality of the date palm is aptly captured by its poetic designation masrû “wealth, prosperity, riches.”184 As a variation on this same theme we note a carved stone block excavated from the Mitanni level at Tell Rimah, which depicts a bison-man holding a ˘owing vase between date palms decorated with herring-bone patterns.185 There is good reason to believe that in at least some instances, shrines and temple façades shared a common set of decorative motifs. A particularly revealing seal of Sargonic date depicts †amas

from the same mold as A9337); H. Danthine, Le palmierdattier et les arbres sacrés dans l’iconographie de l’asie occidentale ancienne (Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1937), pl. 85 no. 572. Note also the Gudea stele on which bison-men ˘ank what appears to be a palm trunk (discussed by DeJong Ellis, in DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A, 127 n. 43 with references). 183. The date palm was “the one ubiquitous source of food and wood common to Mesopotamia” (DeJong Ellis, in DUMUE2-DUB-BA-A, 133). See Lambert’s discussion of the tree as a symbol of fortuna bona in BSOAS 48 (1985) 438–40; and M. DeJong Ellis’ discussion of the tree as a general symbol of protection and well-being in “Gilgamesh’ Approach to Huwawa: A New Text,” AfO 28 (1981–82) 128–29. 184. As pointed out by Lambert, BSOAS 48 (1985) 438; see CAD M/1 sub masrû. 185. Howard-Carter, Iraq 45 (1983) 66–68. Relief panels from the façade of the temple of Insusinak at Susa dated to the twelfth century also depict bison-men and date-palm trunks (p. 68).

within a shrine whose upright supports consist of ascending spiral columns (˜g. 28).186 Engaged columns of precisely this type have been excavated at the Old Babylonian levels of Tell Leilan, Tell Rimah, and Telloh.187 At all three sites, engaged columns mimicking date-palm trunks of varying imbricated frond-scar patterns have also been discovered, often side by side with the spiral columns. It seems reasonable to suggest that the theme of the ornamental date palm was applied to the shrines within the temples as well as to the external temple façades just as spiral columns were applied to both shrines and temple façades.188 Further, there is a textual witness to the use of the date-palm motif, perhaps applied as an architectural element, within the Ebabbar at Larsa, as Gungunum named his second regnal year, “The year (Gungunum) brought two bronze date palms into the temple of †amas.”189 It is quite 186. D. McCown, R. Haines, and D. Hansen, Nippur I: Temple of Enlil, Scribal Quarter, and Soundings, OIP 78 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967), pl. 109 no. 11. 187. H. Weiss, “Tell Leilan: On the Habur Plains of Syria,” BiAr 48 (1985) 10–11; H. Weiss, “Tell Leilan and Shubat Enlil,” MARI 4 (1985) 278–81; D. Oates, “The Excavations at Tell al Rimah, 1966,” Iraq 29 (1966) 70–96. The use of palmtrees as an architectural device for the decorating of temple façades dates to at least the Uruk period (Weiss, BiAr 48 [1985] 10). 188. Weiss, BiAr 48 (1985) 10–11. Additionally, there is reason to believe that the date-palm motif was employed at the Dagan temple at Mari (p. 11). 189. A. Ungnad, “Datenlisten,” RLA 2 (1938) 155.

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED

61

Fig. 26. A9337 and A16997 (possibly cast from the same mold). Courtesy of The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. (Grid measured in centimeters.)

Fig. 27. Danthine, Le palmier-dattier et les arbres sacrés dans l’iconographie de l’asie occidentale ancienne, pl. 85 no. 572.

62

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

Fig. 28. McCown, Haines, and Hansen, OIP 78, pl. 109 no. 11.

possible then, that the date-palm column on the relief hearkens back to the Old Babylonian period when such designs were clearly part of the decorative repertoire of temple façades, and, in all likelihood, of shrine structures as well. The close Old Babylonian association between †amas, the

bison-man, and the date palm played a role, no doubt, in the choice of this motif. The shrine with its two protomes poses the greatest challenge to the interpretation of the relief. Fortunately, the explicatory captions may be called upon to serve as a guide:

Caption I (far left): sa-lam dUTU EN GAL a-sib É.BABBAR.RA sá qé-reb UD.KIB.NUNki

Image of †amas, the great lord, the one who dwells in the Ebabbar, which is within Sippar.

Caption II (right, above the canopy): d 30 dUTU u d15 ina pu-ut ZU.AB ina bi-rit dMU† ti-mi †UB.ME†-ú

Caption III (right, under the canopy): NIMGIR dUTU MU†.IGI.MIN

Sin, †amas, and Istar are depicted opposite the Apsû, between Nirah191 (and) the pillars.192

The herald of †amas, the two-faced snake.

190 191

This reading of the captions—˜rst proposed by Poebel, and accepted by Jacobsen and others—has recently been challenged by Seidl,192 who makes the valid point that the alleged snake does not look much like a snake as typically rendered in Meso-

190. The omission of the expected conjunction, u, ˜nds parallels among phrases of the type berÿt GN GN2 (GN3); berÿt TN TN2; and berÿti PN PN2 (see CAD B sub birÿt). 191. “Stange, Pfahl; Pfeiler, Säule,” AHw. sub timmu. 192. Poebel, AJSL 52 (1936) 111–14; Jacobsen, in Ancient Israelite Religon, 31 nn. 21–24; Seidl, ZA 91 (2001) 126.

potamian art.193 Rather, Seidl, follows a reading of the second line of Caption II, ˜rst proposed by King194 and adopted by von Soden,195 of ina

193. “Die gebogene Rippe des †amas-Reliefs enthält keine der Charakteristika einer altorientalischen Schlangendarstellung, weder geschuppte Haut, noch schlängelnde oder ringelnde Bewegung, noch Kopf oder Schwanz. Besonders der Vergleich des kantigen Reliefs mit der rundlichen Modellierung der Säule zeigt, daß hier etwas anderes gemeint ist als ein schwellender Schlangenleib” (Seidl, ZA 91 [2001] 126). 194. BBSt., 121 n. 2. 195. AHw. sub siamu(m) Gt.

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED

bi-rit ili mus-ti-mi, understanding “Zwischen den Mustÿmu-Göttern,”196 where mustÿmu is the Gtstem participle with the rarely attested meaning “etwas für die Dauer tun,”197 in this case sit¿mu “für immer bestimmen,” as given in AHw. The “Mustÿmu-gods”—the two depicted protomes—are equated with the pairs of deities, well-known from the Neo-Assyrian period, that support the winged solar disk, although there is no corroborating evidence to support this identi˜cation.198 Seidl argues that Caption III refers to the actual positioning of the three astral symbols of Sin, †amas, and Istar on the lintel of the shrine that must join the two protomes, but that could not be represented since the shrine is rendered in pro˜le, i.e., the symbols are rotated 90o into the plane of the relief. The caption must present new information not given in the relief, Seidl argues, otherwise it is redundant; in this case the label describes the third dimension that the artist could not incorporate. While I agree that several elements of the image, i.e., solar disk, stool, and twin deities holding ropes, collectively suggest Middle- and NeoAssyrian in˘uences to some degree, this interpretation of the captions encounters serious di¯culties that must be addressed. Most signi˜cantly, it is quite doubtful, in my opinion, that sâmu is attested in the Gt, let alone in the Gt with the sparsely attested function of denoting “etwas für die Dauer tun.” A Gt (or Gtn) participle of the verb is, to my knowledge, otherwise unattested. Of the six other attestations of the Gt of sâmu cited by von Soden, ˜ve occur in a passage from the sixth tablet of Gilgames and one from a Late OB or Middle Babylonian love lyric (MIO 12 [1966–67] 54: 9). For Gilg. VI 47, 57 (cited below) and MIO 12 [1966–67] 54: 9 (dimmatam m¿si u urri [. . .] bi-ták!-ka-a tastÿmÿ “you have decreed lament . . .

196. Seidl, ZA 91 (2001) 128. 197. W. von Soden, Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik, 3rd ed. (with the collaboration of W. R. Mayer), AnOr 33 (Rome: Ponti˜cio Istituto Biblico, 1995), § 92f (hereafter cited as GAG). 198. E.g., CS, pl. 33e; Impressions, no. 464; for additional examples, see Seidl, ZA 91 (2001) 127 n. 27.

63

day and night;” for the emendation, see CAD †/1 sub sâmu B mng. 1b–1u) the perfect is clearly the better ˜t, the iterative sense of the idiom being expressed by the Gtn of bakû, i.e., bitakkâ sâmu ‘to decree to perpetual lamenting’. Similarly, for the remaining attestations, all clustered in a passage from Gilg. VI (54–56), there can be little doubt that the perfect is at work here as well—to the extent that the Gt preterite is to be distinguished from the G perfect. 199 In this passage we encounter the common formula pret.-ma perf. That we are dealing with the G perf., and not the Gt pret., is suggested by the fact that the other verbs in this construction are either unattested in the Gt, i.e., seberu (VI 49), or the passive/intransitive Dt [i.e., herû (VI 52) and târu (VI 61)] is impossible given the context (although for these verbs the Dtn cannot be excluded200). Indeed, this is the understanding of the CAD, given that a I/2 stem is not listed for sâmu. If the perfect is accepted for these forms, then it re˘ects a SB remnant of the regular OB function of signifying the last of a sequence of actions (most recent activity), i.e., focusing upon a critical event that occurs within the context of a previous completed action, i.e., pret.-ma perf.201 46. ana Dumuzi hamiri suhretÿki Dumuzi, the lover of your youth, 47. satta ana satti bitakkâ taltÿmÿssu year upon year, you decreed for him perpetual lamenting. 48. allalla bitruma taramÿ-ma You loved the speckled allallu-bird, 49. tamhasÿs¿-ma kappasu taltebir but struck him down and broke his wing.

199. See C. Woods, “The Deictic Foundations of the Sumerian Language” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 2001), 573–81. Note that for MIO 12 (1966–67) 54: 9, Lambert presumably understands ta-as-ti-mi as a perfect as well, given his translation “you have decreed.” 200. Von Soden, AHw., 341 understands herû in Gilg. VI 52 as the only Dtn attestation of this verb; however, the broader context suggests a pret.-ma perf. construction. 201. Note also, for example, SB ala tumassir-ma tattasi ana ahâti “You left the city and went out to the peripheries” (Erra Epic IV 20).

64

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

50. izzaz ina qisatim-ma isessi kappÿ Now he stands in the woods crying “My wing!” 51. taramÿ-ma nesa gamir em¿qi You loved the lion, perfect in strength, 52. tuhtarrÿssu 7 u 7 suttati but for him you have dug seven pits and seven. 53. taramÿ-ma sÿsâ naåid qabli You loved the horse devoted to battle, 54. istuhha ziqta u dirrata taltÿmÿssu but you decreed for him the whip, spur, and lash, 55. 7 bera lasama taltÿmÿssu you decreed for him a seven-league gallop, 56. dalaha u satâ taltÿmÿssu you decreed for him to drink muddy water, 57. ana ummÿsu Silili bitakkâ taltÿmi and for his mother Silili, you decreed perpetual weeping. ... 61. tamhasÿs¿-ma ana barbari tuttÿrrÿsu You struck him and turned him into a wolf. It must also be pointed out that while the G and D participles of sâmu frequently occur in the epithets of gods, they are invariably encountered in the bound form governing a genitive, usually paronomastically sÿmtu.202 An unbound participle would indeed be unique in this context. Finally, it must be asked if it is theologically possible for a minor, adjunct deity to be a “determiner of fate”— and assuming this role with no less an object than the emblematic form of his master. The function denoted by saåimu/musÿmu is usually, as described in texts, the prerogative of major deities, describing a relationship between a superior and an inferior. Seidl applies a similar reasoning to the interpretation of Caption III, claiming that the caption describes the crown of †amas, the third dimension of which could not be captured by the artist. She reads AGA dUTU ser-si 2 and argues that the rarely attested lexeme sersu “growth, bump, pro202. See Tallqvist Götterepitheta, 222–23; CAD †/1 sub sâmu B 2c 1u–2u.

tuberance”203 refers to the horns of the crown and 2, i.e., the dual, to the fact that there are actually two, parallel sets of horns although their rendering in pro˜le on the relief reveals only one.204 Seidl cites evidence from Ebla, i.e., u3-sakar (for u4-sakar): za-la-sa205 (MEE 4, 1134), to argue that “seit alters werden die Hörner der Götterkronen mit der Mondsichel verglichen.”206 I have reservations concerning this analysis of the caption, reservations that would remain even if the Ebl. za-la-sa could be equated, with con˜dence, with Akk. sersu, and this third-millennium gloss could reasonably be applied to our ˜rst-millennium context. First, the sparsely attested term sersu is known exclusively from divinatory texts and is never used, to my knowledge, to refer to the horns of the divine crown in connection with †amas, or even the solar disk for that matter. While Seidl is certainly correct that there is a semantic and lexical connection between the horns of the divine crown and the crescents of celestial bodies, particularly the moon, the lexeme involved is qarnu, not sersu. Indeed, the former is regularly used with reference to the horns of the divine headdress and is well-attested as referring to the cusps formed from celestial bodies.207 On the other hand, 203. CAD S sub sirsu ‘protuberance’; AHw. sub sersu ‘Auswuchs, Beule, [Horn v. Lammfötus]; übertr. Mondhörnern’. It is unclear as to how Seidl analyzes ser-si 2 grammatically. If ser-si is understood as a singular bound form (in lieu of seres), this would indeed be unexpected given that, as laid out in the General Commentary to the text edition, the other ˜fty free bound forms encountered in the SGT inscription (i.e., those that are expressed syllabically) are uniformly correct according to the standards of OB/ MB grammar, with the possible exception of ahu (v 7; v 35). 204. Seidl, ZA 91 (2001) 128–29. The force of the argument is somewhat diminished by the fact that there would actually be six “protuberances as horns,” in two rows; more convincing is to understand MIN for dUTU. 205. Krebernik understands this form as the dual, “die beiden Spitzen,” equating it with Akk. sersu, Arb. dirs “(Backen-) Zahn” (Krebernik Beschwörungen, 136). 206. Seidl, ZA 91 (2001) 128 n. 32. 207. Enlil: si se-er-zisi dUtu mul-mul-la-gim : qarnasu kÿma sar¿r samsi ittananbitu “(Enlil) whose horns gleam like the rays of the sun” (BA 10/1 [1913] 18 no. 9: 14f.; OECT 6, 17: 14–15); Marduk: agê qarnÿ sÿrati . . . ina qaqqadÿsu l¿ askun¿ma “I set upon his (Marduk’s) head a crown of mighty horns” (5R 33 ii 50–iii 3); Ninurta: aga sag la2-la2 : sa ina agê qarnÿ

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED is di¯cult to accept that the term sersu, unknown with reference to the horned crown, would be employed—in a label the purpose of which is to provide a clear explanation of an otherwise obscure image—in lieu of the regular, well-known word with this meaning, i.e., qarnu. Interestingly, the two terms do occur within the same context, but they are not used synonymously, rather sersu describes bumps on the horns of either the moon, i.e., cusps (qarnu), or izbu in omen texts.208 And while I agree with Seidl that the purpose of the captions is to provide explanations for a di¯cult image, we disagree as to precisely what is in need of explanation. According to Seidl, without an explanatory label the crown would be incomprehensible, the caption describing, again, the third dimension that the artist could not depict: “Und dies war nötig, weil ein Babylonier des 1. Jts. Hörner an Kronen anthropomorpher Götterbilder nicht kannte, und er die Pro˜ldarstellung vor seinem geistigen Auge nicht umsetzen konnte, wie es sein Vorfahr in altbabylonischer Zeit tat, der Hörnerkronen auf den Köpfen fast aller rundplastischen Götterbilder kannte.”209 Although the horned crown was not as common in the Neo-Babylonian period as in earlier periods—which may have more to do with the decline in the depiction of anthropomorphic deities than with an abandonment of the horned crown itself—I doubt that the image would have

“(you) of the crown of horns” (BA 5/5 [1906] 638 no. 7 rev. 19f.); Lugalbanda: apir agâ sa qarnÿ karpasati “he wears a crown of magni˜cent horns” (OrNS 36 [1967] 126: 171). Quoted from CAD Q sub qarnu 5d. Note also the restoration of the epithet bel qarni in OrNS 23 (1954) 210: 3. 208. With reference to the moon: summa Sîn ina tamartÿsu qarnat¿su sirsÿ malâ attalu issakkan . . . “if the moon in its appearance, its horns (i.e., cusps) are covered with bumps, an eclipse will take place . . . (ACh Suppl. 7: 14–15); with reference to izbu: [summa izbu qarnu] immittasu sersÿ malât . . . “if an anomaly’s right horn is full of protuberances . . .” (Leichty Izbu, 116: 30u); [summa izbu qarnu] sumelsu sersÿ malât . . . “if an anomaly’s left horn is full of protuberances . . .” (Leichty Izbu, 117: 31u); summa izbu qarnat¿su sersÿ malâ . . . “if an anomaly’s horns are full of protuberances . . .” (Leichty Izbu, 119: 62’); also note with reference to fungus: summa katarru sirsÿ ittanandiam “if the fungus is speckled with protuberances” (CT 40, 18: 86); citations from AHw. sub sersu. 209. Seidl, ZA 91 (2001) 129 (see also 131–32).

65

been so obscure to a Babylonian of the 9th century as to require an explicatory caption. At least as late as the reign of Marduk-apla-iddina I (c. 1173– 1161) deities were still being portrayed with horned crowns, rendered, signi˜cantly, in pro˜le.210 And throughout the ˜rst millennium the horned crown was a regular motif on kudurrus, depicted frontally upon temple-façade socles and serving as the emblems of Anu and Enlil.211 The crowns of Anu and Enlil are telling in this regard. Texts referring to the fashioning of the crowns (agû) for these gods and their involvement in rituals demonstrate that they were more than mere images etched in relief, but actual objects fashioned in the round.212 And SB literary texts make reference to the “wearing” of the agû of Anu and Enlil,213 and, as previously discussed, texts that were known in ˜rst-millennium Babylonia describe divine crowns as consisting of horns (qarnu).214 Moreover, Neo-Babylonian seals occasionally attest the horned headdress depicted in pro˜le when worn by minor deities.215 Of course, in contemporaneous Assyria the horned crown was still very much alive and well.216 All told, it is 210. Seidl, Kudurru-Reliefs, nos. 50, 54. 211. Seidl, Kudurru-Reliefs, 116–17. On the Nebuchadnezzar I kudurru (BBSt., pls. 83–91), Sîn, in addition to Anu and Enlil, is represented by a horned crown upon a temple-façade socle. 212. E.g., mala sa En¿ma elis ana Bel inassû panu sa agê sa Ani u subtu sa Enlil kuttum¿ “as long as he recites the En¿ma elis to Bel the front part of Anu’s crown and Enlil’s seat remain covered” (RAcc., 136: 282–84); agê Anim sa sarru belÿya iqbâ etepus “I made the crown of Anu that the king, my master ordered” (ABL 498: 7); kunukk¿ sa sarru belÿ iddina . . . ana libbi agê Anim digal¿ illak¿ “the cylinder seals which the king, my lord, gave to me . . . will be suitable as gems for the crown of Anu” (ABL 498: 16); also, 4 sibtu mahar 2 agê Ani “four loaves in front of the two crowns of Anu” (RAcc., 63: 31). From CAD A/1 sub agû 1a–1u, 2u. 213. E.g., assu sarr¿t Ani ilqû . . . agê Ani ÿteddiq “because (Nabû) has taken Anu’s kingship . . . he wears the crown of Anu” (SBH, 145 ii 26); saht¿-ma ina kussî agûsu saknu . . . “and (while) his [Enlil’s] crown was oˆ and placed on a chair . . .” (CT 15, 39 ii 19 [Anzu]); from CAD A/1 sub agû 1a–2ubu, cu. 214. The reference to the horned crown of Lugalbanda, cited above, OrNS 36 (1967) 126: 171, for instance, is known from Late Babylonian sources as well as from texts from Assurbanipal’s library. 215. CS, 219 (Text-˜g. 66); R. M. Boehmer, “Hörnerkrone,” RLA 4 (1972–75) 432 no. 44. 216. Boehmer, RLA 4 (1972–75) 433.

66

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

di¯cult to believe that a simple change of perspective—i.e., depicted in pro˜le rather than frontally, and the fact that the crown is worn by a deity instead of resting upon a socle—would render the image incomprehensible, only to be given meaning by a term that is even more obscure than the image itself. There have been yet other interpretations of these captions, but similar to the case of mustÿmi discussed above—which thrusts the verb into a very rare and uncomfortable usage of the Gt, and from there into an even rarer, if not completely unattested participial formation of that meaning—these readings force the captions into translation by inventing otherwise unattested lexemes. Hence, King’s mussu: AGA d UTU / mus-si MIN, “crown of †amas, rod of same;”217 and Wiggermann’s sirpanu: AGA dUTU / sir-pani MIN, “crown of †amas, (a dress of) red wool of same.”218 The reading of the captions accepted here matches the relief quite well if one accepts that the canopy represents a simpli˜ed, schematic representation of a snake-body from which the human torsos emerge. And this may very well be the case; for as previously noted, certain elements of the relief, e.g., the bison-men, the lion faces, and the three approaching ˜gures, are similarly portrayed with little detail. Seidl’s objection notwithstanding, several kudurrus depict snakes that are apparently without pattern or detail.219 Naturally, the timmu must correspond to the palm column and

217. BBSt., 121 n. 2. Hilprecht (Explorations in Bible Lands, 271 n. 1) understands mussu as the D imp. of a verb masû meaning ‘to be bright,’ i.e., “tiara of †amas, make the tiara of †amas bright,” assuming ma-su-u is synonymous with na-maru in 2R 47 rev. i 58f. as both are oˆered in this commentary as readings of ZAL; however, masû is rather to be connected with the verb sumsû ‘to spend the night awake, to stay overnight’ (see CAD M/1 sub masû B; †/3 sub sumsû). 218. If such a garment belonged to †amas’s wardrobe (and, presumably, it would be an important piece given that the deity is depicted wearing it on the relief and that it warranted an explicatory label), one might expect it to be listed among either the garments oˆered at the time of the commemoration of the statue or the subsequent lubustu oˆerings. Wiggermann’s reading is quoted in Jonker, Remembrance, 164 n. 37. 219. E.g., Meli-sipak, BBSt., pl. 18; Nabû-mukÿn-apli, BBSt., pls. 76–78; undated fragment, BBSt., pl. 81—lacking scalepattern or is it effaced in these cases?

One Line Long

the Apsû must be represented by the series of wavy lines at the base of the image. The captions serve to identify the image and elucidate its more obscure elements, which, based on arcane and archaic iconography, must have been readily accessible only to the initiate. Interestingly, the inclusion of such explanatory captions seems to have been a practice con˜ned primarily to the time of Nabû-apla-iddina; of the four kudurrus with captions, three are dated to this king’s reign.220 As a group, the SGT captions have a telescoping eˆect if read in the order presented above. The ˜rst caption, located in the neutral, empty space of the tablet’s upper left-corner, describes the central theme of the relief, the depiction of †amas in his shrine, and serves as a title for the tablet, reiterating the incipit of the narrative. The second caption labels the individual elements of the unique shrine by way of mapping their positions with respect to the three chief astral deities, Sîn, †amas, and Istar. The inclusion of these deities on the relief is probably in deference to the standard iconographic conventions of kudurrus, which dictate that their representation in astral form, in this particular order, is all but required. The third caption is entirely devoted to the description and identi˜cation of Nirah whose inclusion in the image is the least expected. I submit that MU†.IGI.MIN is not a descriptive proper name of Nirah, so Jacobsen’s “the chief constable of Shamash, Mush-igimin,”221 but is rather a description of Nirah’s portrayal on the relief as two upper bodies emerging from a single ophidian form. Therefore, this line is to be understood as “the snake (depicted) with two front parts,” i.e., in overlapping pro˜le.222

220. The two other Nabû-apla-iddina kudurrus with captions are BBSt., nos. 28 and 29; the fourth kudurru is dated to the reign Nabû-mukÿn-apli, BBSt., no. 9. 221. Jacobsen, in Ancient Israelite Religion, 31 n. 23. If MU†.IGI.MIN were a proper name, as suggested by Jacobsen, one might expect it to precede the title rather than follow it, i.e., “Mush-igimin, the herald of Shamash.” 222. Note, however, that creatures of this type are known from lexical lists: mus-sag-2–bi = se-er si-na qaq-qa-da-su (Hh. XIV 16); mus-sag-min(2)-na (VAS 17, 1 iii 35); mus-2–sag (MEE 4, no. 116 iii 7). See Å. W. Sjöberg, “The Ebla List of Animals, MEE 4, no. 116,” WO 27 (1996) 16.

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED

However, the interpretation of the captions proposed here is not without its di¯culties. The identi˜cation of Nirah as a member of †amas’s court is, as far as I am aware, unknown to any theological or learned tradition in Mesopotamia. Arguably, it was for precisely this reason that the designers of the relief deemed it necessary to include an explicatory label describing his connection with †amas. Yet, there must have been some basis for this association other than that Nirah’s lithe ophidian body lends itself to various and sundry architectural functions. The speci˜cation of Nirah as nagir †amas, coupled with the purposeful inclusion of other elements in the relief, bespeaks an underlying signi˜cance to Nirah’s incorporation. The reading of dMU† in third-millennium texts remains entangled.223 The logogram may be read as either Nirah, the dei˜ed snake,224 or as Irhan, the divine genius symbolic of the western branch of the Euphrates—a metaphorical re˘ection of the river’s sinuous meanders and a likening of the apparent rejuvenative power of snakes to the river’s ability to ever replenish itself.225 The Irhan cult

223. G. J. P. McEwan prefers the reading /nirah/ for thirdmillennium texts, except in lexicographical contexts and in instances where /irhan/ could be directly shown to be the correct reading; he assigned the logogram dMU†.ir-ha.DIN.DÚB and related logograms to the reading /irhan/, which is indeed the usual writing for this lexeme (“dMU† and Related Matters,” OrNS 52 [1983] 215–29). However, there is ample evidence to demonstrate that dMU† has the reading /irhan/ as early as the Fara period (Steinkeller, Sale Documents, 244 n. 8; also Gelb, Kudurrus, 150). Thus, as recently pointed out by F. A. M. Wiggermann (TSG, 43 n. 89; “Nirah, Irhan,” RLA 9 [2001] 571), the early histories of these two deities remain intertwined. During the second and ˜rst millennia, dMU† and dMU†. DIN.DÚB are diˆerentiated, but to what end is uncertain, as d MU† still carries the reading /irhan/ (e.g., MSL 14, 143: 14u [Proto-Ea]; An I 275) in addition to the regular /nirah/ (TSG, 43 n. 89). For recent treatments on the reading of dMU† and related logograms, see also B. Alster and A. Westenholz, “The Barton Cylinder,” ASJ 16 (1994): 36 ad xii 7; R. Biggs, “The Ab¿ Salabÿkh Tablets: A Preliminary Survey,” JCS 20 (1966) 80 n. 54; R. Biggs, Inscriptions from Tell Ab¿ Salabÿkh, OIP 99 (Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1974), 55; Krebernik Beschwörungen, 298–301; Mander Pantheon, 68; H. Wohl, “Nirah or Sahan,” JANES 5 (1973) 443–44. 224. McEwan, OrNS 52 (1983) 218–23. 225. McEwan, OrNS 52 (1983) 223–26; Wiggermann, RLA 9 (2001) 571. That Irhan was a literary name for the Purattu (Euphrates)/Arahtu is demonstrated by the lexographical and

67

is attested only at Ur, where in the Ur III period the riverine deity and associated cultic personnel receive oˆerings during the akÿtu festival; the cult, however, does not appear to have survived beyond the third millennium.226 The cult of Nirah is somewhat better attested if onomastic evidence is any indication of worship, the god occurring in names from the Old Akkadian through Middle Babylonian periods. There is no evidence of oˆerings to Nirah, although an OB year name from the Diyala mentions a throne and dais for the god while other sources cite Nirah as an apotropaic deity in the Ekur/Esara.227 In at least some traditions the two gods may have been later syncretized, or, possibly, were in origin one and the same deity—a proposal that ˜nds support in the obvious phonological,228 semantic, and graphic similarities between the two, as well as the occasional alternation between Nirah and Irhan in the scholarly tradition.229

scholarly traditions: [í]d.dMU†.TIN.TIR.DÚB : pu-rat-tum (Antagal J ii 6u); ídir!-ha-an : pu-rat-tú (RA 28 [1931] 134 ii 6, †urpu comm.); [íd.dMU†.D]IN.TIR.DÚB : a-ra-ah-tum (Erimhus VI 48). The term Arahtu is currently understood as designating the western branch of the Euphrates. As described by A. R. George, “(the Arahtu) appears to have increased in importance as the eastern branch, ˘owing through Kis and Nippur, became less navigable and its banks less fertile. By the ˜rst millennium the Arahtu branch had become the main course of the Euphrates in Babylonia, and the names Arahtu and Purattu were used synonymously for the river that ˘owed through the city of Babylon” (George, Topographical Texts, 351). 226. The onomastic evidence suggests that the cult was defunct by the OB period, after which point the deity is mentioned primarily in lexical lists and the odd incantation or medical text (McEwan, OrNS 52 [1983] 215–29). 227. See Wiggermann, RLA 9 (2001) 573–74, with references. 228. Wiggermann observes that Arahtu and Irhan share a common Semitic origin, both stemming from the root årh ‘to go en route,’ Irhan attesting the su¯x -an commonly encountered in early West-Semitic dialects (RLA 9 [2001] 570; TSG, 43 n. 89, with references; cf. n. 231 below). Wiggermann, however, denies an etmological relationship between Nirah and Irhan since they are “diˆerent gods” (RLA 9 [2001] 572)—an unlikely proposition in my opinion given the relationships between the two deities outlined above (further, note Krebernik’s suggestion that both /nirah/ and /irhan/ may stem from an orignial *nirhan [Krebernik Beschwörungen, 333 n. 184]). 229. Speci˜cally, note that in the OB forerunner to An, d MU† is associated with three protective deities (d.a-laAlád, d Udug-ka-ka, dLamma-ka-ka [TCL 15, 10: 141–44]). Presumably dMU† here represents Nirah, since elsewhere dMU† in

68

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

Nirah is both the son and messenger of Istaran,230 the chief deity of Der on the Elamite border. It seems likely that Istaran, in his original manifestation, had no association with chthonic snake gods. As both of his names indicate, Istar-an “the two Istars,”231 referring to Venus as the morning and evening star, and “Great AN” (An-gal/Anû rabû), he is in origin an astral deity—a view that ˜nds support in his marriage to Manzât, the rainbow.232 His association with the chthonic Nirah must have been a secondary development owing to the location of his cult center, Der, near the Iranian plateau where, as recently described by Wiggermann, there was a long tradition of chthonic snake gods.233 These two seemingly incongruous characteristics of Istaran may be the result of syncretism between an astral Istar-type god and a local snake deity. Istaran and Nirah appear to have enjoyed a particulary close association, as Nirah also served as the iconographic representative of Istaran234

apotropaic function is rendered as Nirah (ES: †erah), e.g., d†era-ah : dMU† : udug-e-sár-ra-ke4 (Emesal Voc. I 19); d†e-lah4-e d Udug-é-sár-ra (var. ì-du8-é-sár-ra) (Cohen Lamentations, 282: 187; 357: 203); d†e-ra-ah udug-é-sár-ra : dMU† ra-bi-is É su-ma (Cohen Lamentations, 235: 265; 304: 139). However, in the later, canonical version of this passage (but here cited as one of six protective deities [udug] of the Ekur), dMU† is glossed d(ir!-ha-an) MU† (An I 275). 230. dMU† sipru sa dKA.DI “Nirah messenger of Istaran” (MDP 2, 91: 23, Nazi-Marutas); dMU† ilu s¿pû mar bÿti sa Der, “Nirah, the resplendent god, the ˜rst-born son of Der” (BBSt., no. 6 ii 49, Nebuchadnezzar I). See Temple Hymns, 131. 231. Assuming the su¯x -an represents the dual. See TSG, 44. 232. W. G. Lambert, “Istaran,” RLA 5 (1976–80) 211; Temple Hymns, 131; TSG, 44–45. Further, note the writing of the Istaran’s cult center Der, BÀD.ANki (cf. Der mahaz dAni [BBSt., no. 6 i 14]). 233. TSG, 33–48. 234. McEwan has identi˜ed the Snake-god holding court on Sargonic seals as Nirah (OrNS 52 [1983] 221). However, Wiggermann argues that this deity must represent Istaran, as an identi˜cation with Nirah “would leave the identity of the master open and give a servant god the iconography of an independent lord” (TSG, 44). Seemingly in favor of McEwan’s hypothesis is a seal depicting the Snake-god holding court with what appears to be the signs MU† DINGIR inscribed in the empty space of the scene (CS, pl. 21b), although, as noted by Frankfort, the sign MU† “so closely resembles similar ‘standards’ depicted with Sun-gods and other deities, or even in

and two late traditions considered the two gods to have been so close as to be identical.235 In Sargonic seals, it is likely Nirah, or Nirah as symbolic of Istaran, that is portrayed as a snake god with an anthropomorphic upper body and lower body of a snake. In these scenes he is often depicted receiving guests and sitting on his coils (˜gs. 29–32); occasionally, he holds his tail which may terminate in a dragon’s or a snake’s head and he is portrayed with either a single-horned headdress indicative of divinity or with a ˘at cap.236 As observed by Wiggermann, the scene may also

simple friezes, that its relevancy may well be doubted, especially as the seals of the period never carry any writing which could be connected with the design” (CS, 121; note, however, in this regard, the presence of a BU sign [MU†x, i.e., gunû-less MU†] on a third-millennium terracotta snake head, an object that perhaps had cultic signi˜cance [MDP 12, 155 ˜g. 211; see also Wiggermann, RLA 9 (2001) 573]). Thus the identity of this god remains uncertain. Quite possibly, Nirah came to represent a chthonic aspect of the astral deity Istaran. This association became so close that Nirah’s ophidian image was not only the symbol of Istaran (as is demonstrated by the Nazi-Marutas kudurru cited above, in which Nirah as “messenger of Istaran” [MDP 2, 91: 23] is listed among the emblems and symbols of other deities), but also the principle, if not the only, form in which Istaran was portrayed—a suggestion that is supported by the absence of an established, independent depiction of this deity. The basis for this identi˜cation would, of course, lie in Nirah’s three-fold role as son, messenger, and symbol of Istaran; in turn, this would have laid the basis for the complete syncretism as evidenced by ˜rst-millennium sources (see n. 235). 235. dMU† = dKA.DI (5R 31, 2 rev. 3 [30]); in the Sultantepe god list Nirah occurs in a case together with dKA.DI and AN.GAL, both names for Istaran [dMU† is the ˜rst divine name listed] [STT 376 iii 11u–13u, 379 iii 30f.]). Further, note that a su-ila prayer to Nisaba mentions Nirah immediately prior to Enlil and Ninlil, a position that suggests an association with Anum (W. G. Lambert, “Literary Texts from Nimrud,” AfO 46–47 [1999–2000] 154–55)—as previously noted, a priviledge otherwise reserved for the astral deity Istaran (An-gal). Recall that the Nebuchadnezzar I kudurru (BBSt., no. 6; see n. 230), Nirah carries the epithet ilu s¿pû mar bÿti sa Der “the resplendent god, the ˜rst-born son of Der” (ii 49) and is invoked along with the major deities Adad, Nergal, and Nanaya; one would perhaps expect Istaran here if Istaran were indeed distinguished from dMU†. 236. TSG, 44; depicted wearing a cap: EGA, pl. 49 nos. 575– 77, 585; wearing a horned headdress: nos. 578, 580, 582, 584, 586; holding his tail: nos. 578, 581; tail terminating in a snake’s head: no. 577. Note also TSG, ˜g. 4b, where several such ˜gures are depicted and one holds his tail.

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED

69

Fig. 29. EGA, pl. 49 no. 575.

Fig. 30. EGA, pl. 49 no. 576.

Fig. 31. EGA, pl. 49 no. 577.

Fig. 32. EGA, pl. 49 no. 578.

include either a moon, star, winged gate—again note Istaran’s origins as an astral deity—or some form of vegetation.237 Nirah is also a common image on kudurrus, well-attested during the entire history of the genre, but here he is portrayed strictly as a naturalistic snake and not as a Mischwesen.238 It seems likely, given the similar forms of the snake-god on the SGT and in the third-millennium glyptic, that the presence of this deity on the relief represents yet another archaic image, one that hearkens back to the Sargonic period. However,

his association with †amas’s court is a diˆerent matter. The simplest explanation may lie in the well-known ED and Sargonic motif of the Sungod in his boat (˜gs. 33–37). The central focus of these scenes is a god seated in a boat which, similar to Sargonic depictions of Nirah/Istaran, consists of a snake with an anthropomorphic upper body serving as the boat’s prow.239 The Snake-god’s tail comprises the stern of the boat, occasionally terminating in a snake’s or dragon’s head. He

237. TSG, 44. 238. Seidl, Kudurru-Reliefs, 154–56.

239. Occasionally depicted with legs, CS, pl. 19e (= EGA, pl. 40 no. 477), 19f (= EGA, pl. 40 no. 478), EGA, pl. 40 no. 479; but most often without legs, EGA, pl. 39 nos. 466, 468, 470, 471; pl. 40 nos. 473–76.

70

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

Fig. 33. EGA, pl. 40 no. 477.

Fig. 34. EGA, pl. 40 no. 478.

Fig. 35. Amiet, La glyptique mésopotamienne archaïque, no. 1440.

Fig. 36. Amiet, La glyptique mésopotamienne archaïque, no. 1431.

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED

71

Fig. 37. Amiet, La glyptique mésopotamienne archaïque, no. 1434.

manipulates a punting pole and the seated deity holds an oar; various vessels, a plough, and a human-faced quadruped invariably complete the scene and often some form of vegetation is included. There is a consensus that the seated deity represents †amas, judging from the rays emanating from the deity’s shoulders, and that the entire scene, as suggested by Frankfort and others, may depict †amas’s240 nightly voyage across the subterranean waters of the netherworld.241

240. CS, 67–70, 108–10; Frankfort, Art and Architecture, 90–91; See also P. Amiet, La glyptique mésopotamienne archaïque, 2nd ed. (Paris: Centre national de la recherche scienti˜que, 1980), nos. 1408–448; W. G. Lambert, “Sumerian Gods: Combining the Evidence of Texts and Art,” in Sumerian Gods and Their Representations, Cuneiform Monographs 7, ed. I. L. Finkel and M. J. Geller (Groningen: Styx publications, 1997), 7–8; Steinkeller, Quaderni di Semitistica 18, 256–67. 241. Collon has connected the scene with the journey of the Moon-god, claiming that, in at least certain scenes, crescentshaped headdresses and standards argue for this identi˜cation (D. Collon, “Moon, boats and battle,” in Sumerian Gods and Their Representations, Cuneiform Monographs 7, ed. I. L. Finkel and M. J. Geller [Groningen: Styx, 1997], 12–13). In fact, there is no obvious reason why both gods cannot share this theme, as their respective daily and nightly journeys take them along the same cosmic path (see n. 243 below for the association of Nirah with Enki and his boat). It is important to point out in this connection that the previously discussed Early Dynastic †amas myth (ARET 5, 6; OIP 99, 326+342) contains several references to the Abzu and Enki/Ea and may therefore, as suggested by Steinkeller (Quaderni di Semitistica 18, 258 n. 39), describe an encounter between these two gods as †amas makes his nightly journey through Enki/Ea’s subterranean realm (note the following passage from Temple Hymns, 17: 15–16, also cited by Steinkeller: ès Abzu ki-zu kigal-zu ki dUtu-ra gù-dé-za “the shrine Abzu is your [Enki’s] place, your Netherworld; it is there that you call/greet Utu”). Two Sargonic seals, also cited by Steinkeller, may depict just such a meeting, i.e., the Sun-god approaches Enki/Ea enshrined within the Abzu (EGA, nos. 1139, 1140).

One Line Short

As I have argued, several aspects of the SGT relief strongly suggest that its designers were in possession of antiquities that re˘ected common archaic motifs and styles. It may be that the treasury of the Ebabbar—and ˜nds at Ab¿ Habba indicate that such a structure did exist—contained third-millennium seals of this type. It will be remembered that Rassam’s ˜nds in the NB levels of the Ebabbar complex included a considerable number of Sargonic and ED antiquities. The likelihood that such seals could have been found in the ˜rst millennium is increased when one observes that the motif of the “Sun-god in his boat” represents, with no less than ˜fty attestations, “the most common mythological scene that is documented on third millennium seals.”242 This is not to say the Boat-god was actually Nirah,243

242. Steinkeller, Quaderni di Semitistica 18, 256. 243. B. Landsberger connected the Boat-god with Enki’s skipper, (Nin)sirsir ‘the slithering one,’ but this has not been proven (“Assyriologische Notizen: I. Der Schiˆergott Sirsir,” WO 1 [1950] 362–66). Intriguing, however, in terms of associating Nirah with the Boat-god and the Apsû (through which †amas’s must pass in his nightly journey) is the following passage from Gudea Cyl. A, ig-ba és-kug im-lá-ne dNirah-kug-Abzu gùn-a-àm “into its doors they were stretching shining ropes, they were like the Apsû’s bright speckled Nirah” (xxvi 30–xxvii 1). And there are other contexts in which Istaran/dMU† is connected with boats and water. In Enki’s Journey to Nippur, Nirah is described as Enki’s punting-pole as he navigates the Euphrates in his boat, ídBuranuna u18-lu súr mu-un-da-an-zìg gis gi-mus-a-ni dNirah-a-ni gisgisal-a-ni gi tur-tur-a-ni dEn-ki u5-ani mu hé-gál sù-ga gismá ní-bi nam-du8 és ní-bi nam-dab5 “the Euphrates rises before him as it does before the furious south wind. His punting pole is his Nirah; his oars are his small reeds. When Enki embarks, the year will be full of abundance. The boat departs by itself, seizing the tow rope by itself ” (85–89). In Ningiszida’s Journey to the Nether World, Istaran, who is equated with Ningiszida, sets sail for the netherworld in a

72

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

although, as Wiggermann notes, the fact that Sungod in his boat and the Nirah motifs share common temporal and geographical distribution (late ED/Sargonic periods, and the Diyala/Hamrin basin) and that both scenes seem to involve agriculture and vegetation may point to a “common underlying mythology in the transtigridian region.”244 The scholars and priests of the Ebabbar may have been as ignorant about this scene as we. They may simply have recognized the seated deity as †amas and then equated the Boat-god with Nirah/Istaran based purely on the visual similarity. Presumably, the iconography surrounding Nirah/ Istaran would have been much more accessible given that Nirah as representative of Istaran was a common element in the repertoire of kudurru symbols. Having come to the conclusion that the anthropomorphic Snake-god represented an ancient adjunct of †amas, the artists depicted the deity in duplicate, thus imitating the conventional portrayal of †amas’s other long-time adjunct, the bison-man.245 Naturally, an understanding of Istaran as in origin a dual or twin deity based on an etymology Istar-an (dual) may go some way to clarifying the twin portrayal of Nirah—either symbolic of, or identical to, Istaran—as well as the lit-

boat, dIstaran igi suba-ke4 ga-ba-dè-u5 ses-mu ga-ba-dè-u5 “O Istaran of the bright visage, let me sail away with you, my brother let me sail away with you” (16); also, dIstaran igi suba-ke4 má-gur8 ri-da-ni su gíd-dè “to lend a hand to Istaran of the bright visage who drifts away on a barge” (6). More tentatively, that Istaran assumed the form of a boat, or is at least associated with boats, may be implied by Ur III references to ud dIstaran in-da-a, where the verb da—which occurs elsewhere in connection with boats, quays, and winds— suggests a meaning “to blow or sail away,” i.e., “when Istaran set sail/departed;” in other contexts, however, the verb has a broader meaning, “to ascend, lead away.” See Sallaberger Kalender, vol. 1, 180–81, particularly, 181 n. 851. 244. TSG, 47. 245. Note that during the ˜rst millennium, both the bisonman and Nirah served an apotropaic function. For the bisonman, see Green, Visible Religion 3 (1984) 84–86. As previously noted, Nirah was the protective spirit (udug) of the Ekur/ Esara. The doubling or pairing of members of †amas’s court is not limited to these adjuncts, note also dNíg-zid-ªdaº = sukkal á-zid-da-ke4 “vizier of the right side,” dNíg-si-sá = sukkal á-gùbbu-ke4 “vizier of the left side,” among other viziers of †amas’s court (An III 139–40).

eral designation MU†.IGI.MIN “the two-faced snake.” Additionally, there may have been strong theological and political incentives for enlisting Nirah into †amas’s court. As Myers has shown, while the pantheon of Sippar is relatively conservative with regard to the major deities (e.g., †amas, Aya, Adad, Istar, Anunÿtu), it is quite volatile, diachronically, with respect to the minor deities, with various additions and subtractions attested between the OB and NB periods.246 Although admittedly little is known about the characters of Istaran and his symbolic manifestation Nirah, there can be no doubt that the aspect of divine judge and arbitrator was among Istaran’s main attributes.247 Thus, in this de˜ning role, Istaran is quite similar to †amas—so much so that Gudea mentions both gods metaphorically in the same breath, “In the Ebabbar, the place of my instruction, the place of my shining like Utu, at that place, like Istaran I justly decide the lawsuits of my city.”248 The asso246. Myers, “The Sippar Pantheon.” 247. On the relationship between snakes and justice more generally, see TSG, 43. 248. é-bar6-bar6 ki-á-ág-gá-gá ki-dUtu-gim dalla-a-gá ki-ba d Istaran-gim di-uru-gá si ba-ni-íb-sá-e (Gudea Cyl. A x 24–26). Similarly, †ulgi, in his role as administrator of justice, frequently identi˜es himself with Istaran: dIstaran ki-en-gi-ra sag4ta níg-nam zu-ù di kalam-ma ki-bi-sè ì-kud-re6 ga-es8 «sar» kalam-ma ki-bi-sè ì-ba-re “he [†ulgi], the Istaran of Sumer, omniscient from birth, ˜rmly decrees the judgments of the land, ˜rmly makes the decisions of the land” (†ulgi X 142– 44); sag4-mu dIstaran kur-kur-ra-me-èn “my heart enables me to be the Istaran of the foreign lands” (†ulgi C 104); with reference to Gilgames: d†ul-[gi] ªsipadº zid ki-en-gi-ra-ke4 ses ªku-liº-ni en dBìl-ga-mes nam-kalag-ga-na mu-ni-in-i-i namur-sag-gá-na mu-ni-in-pàd-pàd dIstaran di-kud kalam-ma tìl-la “†ulgi, the true shepherd of Sumer, praised his brother and friend the lord Gilgames because of his might, and declared him because of his heroism: ‘Istaran, the judge who dwells in the Land’ ” (†ulgi O 138–42). Istaran is also described as a judge in the Nanse Hymn (although the text is broken, note the association with the ophidian Ningiszida): sipad mas-su kalam-ma [. . .] gál kur-kur-ra dIstaran ªdiº si sá-a ªkalamº-a tìl-la-àm KA [. . .]dNin-gis-zid-da-ke4 [. . .] ªmiº-ni-in-dab5 “The shepherd, the counselor of the Land, . . . of the countries, Istaran, who decides lawsuits justly, who lives in the Land . . . Ningiszida . . . seized” (Nanse Hymn 236–38). In addition, Istaran’s role as arbitrator is well-known from the Lagas-Umma border dispute: dEn-líl . . . dNin-gír-su d†ára-bi ki e-ne-sur Mesilim lugal-Kiski-ke4 inim-dIstaran-na-ta és GANÁ bi-ra ki-ba na bí-dù “Enlil . . . demarcated the border between Ningirsu and †ara. Mesilim, king of Kis, at the command of Istaran,

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED ciation of Istaran with †amas is nearly as old as the literary record itself, as the mythic composition involving †amas, known from Early Dynastic manuscripts from Ab¿ Salabÿh and Ebla (ARET 5, 6; OIP 99, 326+342), states, i-ba-{AR dUTU ÍD !(A.LAGABxAN) NAMMU ù dI†TARAN “†amas, the River-god, Nammu, and Istaran assemble.” 249 A common judicial aspect, presumably, underlies the gathering of these four. The Rivergod, (d)ÍD, the “just judge” 250—the hypostasis of river’s cleansing powers that wash away evil and clear the innocent—is well known in association with the river ordeal. The water deity Nammu, although better known as a mother goddess, is both directly and indirectly equated with dÍD in later periods,251 a fact that is re˘ected, on some level,

measured it oˆ and erected a stele at that place (Entemena 28–29 i 1–12). Istaran’s role as judge is attested as early as ED III, as demonstrated by the following passage from an Ab¿ Salabÿh literary text: dIstaran di nu-mi-kud “Istaran did not pass judgement” (OIP 99, 328 viii 1–2). That Istaran retained this characteristic into the ˜rst millennium is re˘ected in a passage from the Erra Epic, in which Istaran states, anaku assu alÿya Der dÿni kÿtti ul adân purussê mati ul aparras “I, on account of my city, Der, will not judge truthful judgments, I will not make decisions for the country” (IV 70–71). 249. ARET 5, 6 xi 4; see M. Krebernik, “Mesopotamian Myths at Ebla: ARET 5, 6 and ARET 5, 7, ” in Literature and Literary Language at Ebla, ed. P. Fronzaroli, Quaderni di Semitistica 18 (Florence: Dipartimento di liguistica, Università di Firenze, 1992), 85. Further, note the occurrence of dÍD immediately following †amas in an OB incantation (Böhl Leiden Coll. 2, 3: 8). 250. dÍD dayyan kÿttim (CT 29, 43: 27). Although usually masculine, dÍD on occasion may be understood as feminine (e.g., T. Jacobsen, The Harab Myth, Sources from the Ancient Near East 2/3 (Malibu: Undena Publications, 1984), 6: 21, 30; also OrNS 39 [1970] 135: 21, see n. 251; the Semitic deity, d Naru, is naturally feminine). Similarly, riverine Irhan may be construed as feminine, e.g., ídIrhan ina kibrÿsa ‘River Irhan with her banks’ (CT 23, 1: 7, also 2: 20 [broken]; Köcher, BAM 2, 124 iv 7, 127: 7). 251. Thus a reading here of Nammu is preferable to Engur. A Sultantepe duplicate of an incantation against eye disease replaces Nammu with dÍD (STT 279 rev. 41, 47; cf. Köcher, BAM 6, 510 iv 14 [= 513 iv 20]; see F. A. M. Wiggermann, “Nammu,” RLA 9 [1998] 138). W. G. Lambert observes that in An II dÍD appears “at the point where parallel listings would lead one to expect Nammu, who is lacking from the list at this point” (“Kosmogonie,” RLA 6 [1980–83] 220). Note that the River-god carries the epithets ÍD DINGIR banât kalama “River, Divine Creatrix of everything,” common in namburbi rituals (OrNS 39 [1970] 135: 21; also OrNS 34 [1965] 127 rev.

73

in the shared graph ENGUR of both names. This passage is reminiscent of a †akkanakkum-period inscription 252 which similarly mentions Istaran and dÍD, together with dMA†.TAB.BA, the divine twins. This last designation later tradition assigns to the underworld pair Lugal-irra and Meslamtaea,253 both of whom are labeled “Lords of the River” and are connected to the River Ordeal and the administration of justice in a hymnic cycle celebrating Ibbi-Sîn.254 This text is not known

7, OrNS 36 [1967] 4: 6), and ÍD DINGIR banât ili u ameli “River, Divine Creatrix of god and man” (TuL, 125: 14–15 [KAR 227]). The Creatrix par excellence is Nammu, who is given titles such as, dNammu dAma tud an-ki “Nammu, Divine Mother who gave birth to Heaven-and-Earth (i.e., everything)” (TCL 15, 10: 36–37) and dNammu-ke4 ama palil ù-tud dingir sár-sár-ra-ke4-ne “Nammu, ˜rst mother, who gave birth to all the gods” (Enki and Ninmah 17). Finally, A I/2 232–35 contains the following entries: i-id : A.LAGABx{AL : dÍD; en-gur : LAGABx{AL : ap-su-ú, en-gur-ru; nam-mu : LAGABx{AL : d ÍD(A.LAGABx{AL)—mistake for LAGABx{AL?; cf. Ea I 71. 252. he-pí[. . .] LUGAL <ma>-rí ki DUMU Puzur 4-es 4-tár LUGAL ax(NI)-na mah-ri dªÍDº be-lí-[s]u dMA†.TAB.[B]A ªùº d K[A.DI] [. . . . . . . . .] ª dº[ÍD] d[KA.D]I ªù dMA†º.TAB.BA †E.N[UM]UN-su li-i[l]-qù-tù a-dì ªsiº-tár-ki-su “[Itlalerra] the king of Mari, the son of Puzurestar, [erected this statue] before dÍD, his lord, MA†.TAB.BA, and Istaran [. . . whoever removes this inscription] may dÍD, Istaran, and MA†.TAB.BA pluck out his seed until his end” (Gelb-Kienast, Königsinschriften, 366–67). 253. R. Litke, A Reconstruction of the Assyro-Babylonian God-Lists, AN: dA-nu-um and AN: ANU †A AM‚LI, TBC 3 (New Haven: Yale Babylonian Collection, 1998), 197–98 nn. 302, 306. 254. Å. W. Sjöberg, “Hymns to Meslamtaea, Lugalgirra and Nanna-Suen in Honour of King Ibbÿsuen (Ibbÿsîn) of Ur,” OrSuec 19–20 (1970–71) 140–78; speci˜cally, íd-zu íd kalag-gaàm íd nam-tar-ra-àm Íd-mah ki-ud-è igi nu-bar-re-dam “(Lord Lugal-irra . . .) Your river is a mighty river, the river which determines fates, the Great River at the place where the sun rises, no one can look at it” (142: 19u–20u); dÍd-lú-ru-gú sag4 dingir-re-e-ne en ka-as-bar níg-ne-ru-e hul-gig dEN.ZU-gim nígsi-sá-e ki-ág “(Lugal-irra, . . .) River-god of the ordeal, the ‘heart’ of the gods, lord, making decisions, who hates evil, like Suen, he loves justice” (143: 35u–37 u); mìn-na-ne-ne lugal íd-da-mees dÍd-lú-ru-gú lú-zid dadag-ga-[àm] “(Lugal-irra and Meslamtaea, . . .) They are both lords of the river, River-god of the ordeal, which clears the true man” (143: 2–3). In regard to “divine twins” in association with the River-god, also note the occurrence of the dei˜ed Euphrates—expressed as a dual—in a text from Pre-Sargonic Mari enumerating emmer oˆerings to various deities, i.e., 1 (bán) se-zíz gi-ti-um dKIB.NUN.A/dKIB.NUN.A (D. Charpin, “Tablettes présargoniques de Mari,” MARI 5 [1987] 72 with commentary; see also C. Woods, “On the Euphrates,” ZA [in press]).

74

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

from an original, but from a Neo-Babylonian copy of a stele found, curiously, at Sippar.255 Hence, in ˜rst-millennium Sippar the judicial aspect of Istaran was not unknown, nor was that of the River-god, dÍD, whose invocation in conjunction with Istaran recalls dMU† of the SGT; for d MU† is not only the symbol and manifestation of Istaran, but, as Irhan, the river par excellence itself, the Euphrates. Further, the location of Der due east of Sippar, at the foot of the eastern mountains, the very place of †amas’s rising, could only have served to magnify Istaran’s resemblance to †amas in the minds of the Ebabbar theologians.256 And it may have been this shared judicial function that made the recruitment of Istaran, or Nirah as the symbolic manifestation of Istaran, into †amas’s entourage theologically comprehensible. In a similar fashion, we note that the concepts truth, justice, and judgment, virtues central to †amas’s identity, were personi˜ed and likewise incorporated into †amas’s court, i.e., Ûƒmu, Kÿttu, Mÿsaru, in addition to Dayyanu, the divine judge.257

255. Colophon: ki-ma pí-i na4NA.DÙ.A LIBIR.RA sá ina Sip-párki 1Re-mu-tum DUB.SAR BÀNDA-da DUMU 1Su-ªxº. . . ú-sab-bi-ma is-su-[uh] “According to the wording of an old stone stele which in Sippar Remûtum, the junior scribe, the son of . . . , examined and copied” (Gelb-Kienast, Königsinschriften, 367). 256. Note the following: LUGAL SA.TU-i “king (lord) of the mountains,” sag4-mu dIstaran-kur-kur-ra-me-en “my heart is Istaran of all the mountains” (or less likely: “of all the lands”) (Temple Hymns, 131). 257. Joannès, RA 86 (1992) 161. Note that at Sippar d DI.KUD is to be read Dayyanu and not Madanu (see Myers, “The Sippar Pantheon”). The association between snakes, justice, and the iconography of the Sun-god is aptly captured on an seal impression from Haft Tepe Iran—the Iranian plateau being well known for its chthonic snake gods and not far removed from the Mesopotamian snake-cult centers of Der and Esnunna. The early second-millennium seal belongs to a judge and the inscription mentions the deities Napirsa and Insusinak. The image depicts a deity seated upon a coiled serpentine throne which in turn rests on a high pedestal consisting, notably, of two intertwined snakes (P. Amiet, “Glyptique élamite à propos de documents nouveux,” Arts Asiatiques 26 [1973] no. 48; P. de Miroschedji, “Le dieu élamite au serpent et aux eaux jaillissantes,” Iranica Antiqua 16 [1981] pl. 2 no. 5); the pedestal itself is supported by what are possibly two kneeling bison-men and scalloped mountains at the base of the image create the setting of the scene. The quality of

Another bit of evidence perhaps suggestive of a link between †amas and Istaran comes from Der itself in the form of an inscribed brick.258 The brick bears a simple building inscription commemorating Kurigalzu’s restoration of Istaran’s temple, Edimgalkalama. The inscription, however, is of secondary interest—it is the drawings above and below the inscription that are remarkable (˜g. 38). Above is a skirted ˜gure, clearly Egyptian in style, wearing a double-plumed headdress and carrying a wés scepter in his left hand, and an çnh symbol in his right; below, again in unmistakable Egyptian fashion, is a sun disk with a snake (uraeus) above it. Smith surmised that the ˜gure was Onuris, a shadowy god who brings back the eye of the sun from afar (the name translated literary, ‘He who brings the distant one’). The brick, he argued, was fashioned by an Egyptian living at Der, perhaps a prisoner of war captured during a campaign in the West.259 While reasons behind this Egyptian’s presence at Der must remain elusive, an attempt to decipher the iconography of the piece meets with somewhat better, if not conclusive, success. Although an identi˜cation with the minor deity Onuris cannot be ruled out, a more obvious choice would be the preeminent solar deity Amun-Ra.260 That the ˜gure is portrayed carrying a wés scepter rather than a lance argues against an identi˜cation with Onuris, while the double-plumed crown is a regular part of the Amun-Ra iconography. Further, the combination of the sun disk and uraeus below the inscription can be read rç ‘sun,’ signifying the Sungod, Ra261—a logographic writing identifying the

the sealing is relatively poor. Both Amiet and de Miroschedji suggest that the two kneeling ˜gures are “naked heroes;” however, the presence of mountains and the hint of horns on both ˜gures (see de Miroschedji’s drawing, pl. 2 no. 5) would seemingly make bison-men more likely. 258. S. Smith, “An Egyptian in Babylonia,” JEA 18 (1932) 28–32. 259. Smith, JEA 18 (1932) 31. 260. R. Ritner (personal communication) 261. F. P. Gaudard (personal communication); see A. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Ashmolean Museum, 1957), 486 (Sign-list N 6).

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED

Fig. 38. Smith, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 18 (1932) pl. 3.

75

76

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

above ˜gure as Amun-Ra. Certainly one would expect the image to be related to the inscription, and some syncretic impetus to lie behind the Egyptian god in the one and the Mesopotamian god in the other. Perhaps for this Egyptian at Der Istaran was so closely allied to †amas in function that, when rendered in the iconographic language of his homeland, the god was most aptly articulated as the solar deity par excellence, (Amun-)Ra.262 Finally, if Lambert is correct in ascribing the Erra Epic in its present form to Nabû-apla-iddina’s reign—suggesting that the Sutian attacks rhapsodized in the epic represent none other than those the SGT attributes to Adad-apla-iddina’s reign— then there may have been a political motive as well for enlisting Nirah/Istaran into †amas’s circle during Nabû-apla-iddina’s reign; for then the return of Der into Babylonian hands, as is clearly suggested by the end of the epic, would be among this king’s many achievements.263 The theologians of the Ebabbar may have been tempted to press Nirah, as the symbol of Istaran, into the service of †amas based on their shared aspect of divine judge and the desire to establish a hierarchy between the two. Thus, they may have made a minor addition to the divine retinue of Ebabbar, re˘ecting Der’s incorporation into a united Babylonia under Nabû-apla-iddina. In so doing, the priests would have projected political developments onto the theological plane—a familiar occurrence in the history of Mesopotamia.

262. The writing of Ra beneath the inscription (written, perhaps signi˜cantly, not as a ligature as is usual, but as two separate graphs ‘snake’ [uraeus] + ‘sun’) may have provided the added bene˜t of various graphic plays on ophidian Nirah and astral Istaran, †amas, and Ra. 263. Lambert, AfO 18 (1957–58) 396–98; Brinkman PKB, 191. According to the Erra Epic, Sutian attacks were responsible for the destruction of Babylon, Sippar, Uruk, D¿r-Kurigalzu and Der. Based on the nearly identical list of vanquished cities at the hands of the same aggressor in Chronicle 24 (Eclectic Chronicle, see n. 90 above), Lambert dates the setting of the epic to the reign of Adad-apla-iddina (Lambert, AfO 18 [1957– 58] 398). Nabû-apla-iddina’s reign would then represent the period “when the Sutian invasions of the recent past were no longer a threat and could be speculated upon from a theological point of view” (Brinkman PKB, 191).

Two Lines Short

Final Remarks Although the relief is clearly reminiscent of the presentation scene of former ages, it is so only in form, not spirit; for while the participants have remained unchanged, the introduction of interceding objects has obstructed the intimacy that the scene once conveyed in its original, third-millennium design. Divinity is still anthropomorphized, but now it is transcendent and inaccessible. The deity is accessible only in his symbolic form, but even in this more approachable manifestation he overwhelms his worshippers. Nabû-nadin-sumi, the sangû priest, can only grasp the stool; the sun disk is still beyond his reach. Greater yet is the deity himself who looms large over his symbol. In this way the relief expresses its concern for order and hierarchy. This is made plain not only by the relative size it ascribes to each, but by way of subtler distinctions as well. The portrayal of the deity’s face was executed with great care for detail, in contrast to the three approaching ˜gures who are depicted coarsely, giving the impression of anonymity when compared to the deity. While the bases of both the pedestal and the throne are fashioned after mountains, the throne is designed with two rows and the pedestal with only one—again symbolic of the relative rank of the deity vis-à-vis his icon. Similarly, †amas wears a divine headdress of four horns whereas the interceding goddess, the protomes, and the bison-men wear headdresses of only three horns. Both of these adjuncts are not only duplicated, but perform a similar service. The two bison-men do not actually support the throne of the god, rather they brace the doors which support the throne upon which the deity is seated. Likewise, the upper bodies of Nirah demonstrate the same indirect relationship with the sun disk. They do not steady the sun disk directly, but support the stool which holds the pedestal upon which the sun disk rests. The representations of Sîn, †amas, and Istar in their astral forms within the shrine, as well as the presence of the Apsû at the base of the image,

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED

have led scholars to describe the SGT as “summing up the Babylonian (and Biblical) cosmogony, with its distinct tripartite division of ˜rmament, land, and water.”264 While this is undoubtedly the setting of the scene, it is not the central focus. The relief is not so much concerned with the division of the cosmos as it is with the tripartite division of the cult—de˜ning the appropriate distances between man, symbol, and deity. Reading the image from left to right, the interceding goddess is depicted slightly larger than the king, who in turn is slightly larger than the sangû priest. At this point, the trend of gradually decreasing ˜gures reverses itself; the symbol towers over the ˜gures and, to an equal measure, the deity looms large over his symbol. The signi˜cance of each element is in accord with its stature; the diˆerences between the approaching ˜gures are seemingly trivial when compared to that between the ˜gures and the symbol and then again to the deity. The setting of this scene, the tripartite division of the cosmos as re˘ected in the vertical axis of the relief—Apsû, earth, and heaven—serves merely to underscore the profundity of this hierarchy. The relative ranking of the symbol and the deity—or the statue as the principal manifestation of the deity—is paralleled in the text; for while the symbol could substitute for the deity as a temporary measure, it was deemed unacceptable as a permanent replacement. Only the presence of the cult statue could insure the full resurrection and operation of the cult. Yet, the fashioning of a new statue notwithstanding, the relief retains the sun disk as a lesser representative of the deity. In this way the image symbolically re˘ects the two phases of history described in the text; for clearly the 264. Parrot, Nineveh and Babylon, 169. Similarly see, Metzger, Königsthron und Gottesthron, vol. 1, 229; Jacobsen in Ancient Israelite Religion, 32 n. 24. It appears doubtful that the scalloped edges of the SGT mimic the waters of the Apsû or the niched façade of the temple—i.e., representing a play upon the setting of this particular scene—as tentatively suggested by Seidl (ZA 91 [2001] 130–31), given that this feature is attested elsewhere in the kudurru corpus, namely, an unpublished kudurru from the reign of Adad-apla-iddina (see Slanski, JCS 52 [2000] 106).

77

inscription distinguishes the time prior to Nabûapla-iddina’s reign, which was marked by Simbarsipak’s installation of the sun disk, from the time of Nabû-apla-iddina’s reign, which is marked by the installation of the cult statue. These two periods pivot on the single word arkanu, “later” (ii 17), which serves as a temporal partition. This duality is further expressed metaphorically as a play on day and night. †amas’s reappearance (usahhira panÿsu; iii 18) in Nabû-apla-iddina’s reign is symbolized by the iconography of his throne—a clear tribute to the Sun-god’s morning ascent, or, quite literally, to his appearance. If the suggestion oˆered here, that the inclusion of d MU† in the image was inspired by the archaic iconography of ED and Sargonic Boat-god scenes, and Frankfort’s interpretation of this scene are both correct, then herein may lie the metaphorical imagery for night. Nirah, as a representative of the Sun-god’s boat, symbolic of his nightly journey across the subterranean waters of the netherworld, is physically linked, quite ˜ttingly, to the symbol of the deity, i.e., the sun disk, during his absence—the permanent night before Nabûapla-iddina’s reign (panÿsu la iddinsu; i 15). Thus, there is a complete parallelism between these two phases of history, the period of †amas’s disappearance and the period of his reappearance; between the symbols of those periods, the sun disk and the statue; between their metaphorical expressions of night and day; and ˜nally, between the iconographic representatives of those metaphors, Nirah and the bison-man. This interpretation of the relief also provides an explanation for Nirah’s depiction in association with the Apsû, for at the far right of the image, Nirah’s ophidian body appears to emerge from the Apsû.265 If the Boat-god scenes did in fact represent the Sun-god’s nightly travel through

265. Given that the image is set within the context of a temple, there is an obvious play here on the secondary meaning of apsû, i.e., denoting a temple water basin (see CAD A/2 sub apsû mng. 3 with references). See Slanki’s discussion in The Babylonian Entitlement Narûs, 219; JCS 52 (2000) 110–11.

78

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

subterranean waters in early Semitic mythology, then certainly these waters would have been equated with the Apsû in subsequent SumeroBabylonian interpretations. And the inclusion of four equidistant stars within the Apsû not only reinforces the cosmological setting of the scene, but also participates in this play upon day and night. The upper portion of the relief is obviously concerned with †amas, the Sun-god, and hence with “day-time” and “day-light.” In the Mesopotamian mythopoeic conception of the cosmos, the stars were believed to reside in the Apsû (or synonymous agrun), or more broadly in the netherworld, during the day, only emerging via the eastern horizon to traverse the heavens at nightfall.266 Thus, as the upper portion of the relief pays tribute to the reappearance of the Sun-god and the glorious daylight that he brings forth, the bottom of the relief depicts the stars within their proper day-time abode, the Apsû. If there is any signi˜cance to the fact that there are four stars, it may be that they represent the four cardinal points, again establishing the grand cosmic scale of the setting of the scene—ana sar erbetti arkassina taparras “For all four points of the compass you [†amas] decide their (mankind’s) future (through divination)” (†amas Hymn 152; Lambert BWL, 134: 152). Further, Nirah’s inclusion in †amas’s entourage as nagir †amas may ˜nd an explanation here as well; for, aside from his roles as herald and tax collector, one of the main functions of the nagirum-o¯cial was that of night watchman. 267 266. For a discussion of stars originating in the Apsû, see R. Caplice, “É.NUN in Mesopotamian Literature,” OrNS 42 (1973) 299–305. Caplice analyzes the following line from a namburbi text which probably refers to a meteorite: én mul agrun-ta ªèº-[a . . .] an-úr-ta ªèº-[a] “Incantation: star which has come forth from the agrun, [star] which has come forth from the horizon;” he concludes that “agrun or kummu is a kenning or alternate name in Mesopotamian mythological texts for the subterranean apsû, and that it was conceived as the habitat of Enki and the gods associated with him as well as of demons who do harm to men, and the region traversed by the sun in its nighttime passage from setting point to rising point” (OrNS 42 [1973] 304; for the identi˜cation of the agrun not only with the apsû, but with the underworld in general, see 301f.). 267. According to Jacobsen the nimgir (nagirum) o¯cial “policed the city at night insuring peace and quiet.” Jacobsen

But this metaphor of day and night may run deeper still. Du Mesnil du Buisson has connected the adjuncts who support the solar disk in Mesopotamia with the iconography of the SyroPalestinian pair †ahar and †alim, which likewise frequently involves solar imagery. This pair, naturally, represents the very embodiment of dawn (shr) and dusk (slm).268 Certainly, the occurrence of Nirah on a kudurru comes as no surprise, for the god, depicted naturalistically as a snake, is a common iconographic feature of this genre, often forming the outer boundary of the image and partially encircling the symbols of the other deities.269 Yet herein may lie the tangible link between the unique, highly stylized image of the SGT and that of the other, more conventional, members of this corpus; for as Nirah surrounds the other symbols in the traditional kudurru, the god similarly, but in a most unorthodox rendition of this scene, envelopes the astral forms of Sîn, †amas, and Istar in the SGT image. However, in both cases the prominence accorded Nirah—by his encircling the symbols of the major gods and his relatively large image scale—would appear, at ˜rst glance, to be in disproportion to what is known of this deity’s impor-

cites a number of attestations in which the translation “night watchman” is appropriate for this o¯ce, most convincingly a description of Hendursag/Isum as “nimgir of the night,” i.e., night watchman: d{endur-sag-gá nimgir ge6-ù-na: [dIsum] nagir mu-si in CT 16, 49: 304–5; and from the same text, nimgirsila-a-sìg-ga-ke4: nagir s¿qi saqummi “night watchman of the quiet street” (CT 16, 15: 21–22); he is similarly mentioned as the enforcer of quiet in SBH 14: 1–2, urú nimgir-ra nu-mu-unna-ab-sì-ga-re ní-bi ªnu-º (dittography—Jacobsen) mu-un-na-absì-g[a-àm] : alu sa nagiri la ú-sah-hi-ru-su ina ramanÿsu ustahrir “the city which would not quiet down for the night watchman, has quieted down for him by itself ” (Akk. “the city in which the night watchman did not make his rounds,” following Jacobsen, ú-sah-hi-ru-su possibly misheard for Assyrian ussahrir¿su < ustahrir¿su(m)). T. Jacobsen, “The Stele of the Vultures Col. I–X,” in Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noah Kramer, AOAT 25, ed. B. L. Eichler (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1976), 250 n. 10. 268. Du Mesnil du Buisson, Études préliminaires, 88–166, see particularly 126–31. Note that in KTU (= AOAT 24) 1.23 †ahar and †alim are referred to as “sons of day;” in two texts (KTU 1.100, 107) the pair is directly linked to the Sun-goddess. 269. Seidl, Kudurru-Reliefs, 154–55 (e.g., pls. 12a, 15c, 20a, 23a, 25a, d; 26a, 27b, 28c, 29a; ˜gs. 11, 13, 14, 16).

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED tance.270 Perhaps, it may be speculated, there is a meaning behind these images beyond the god’s serpentine form lending itself to such depictions— that these depictions conceal a deeper cosmological meaning. Lambert, for instance, sees the snake of the usual kudurru scene as Irhan, a manifestation of the “cosmic river.”271 Beyond participating in an iconographic motif common to kudurrus, the appearance of dMU† with some further cosmological meaning would certainly be in the spirit of the SGT image. The importance of water in Mesopotamian cosmogonic thought cannot be doubted, and the River-god as the hypostasis of this primary element certainly plays a role in this tradition, as demonstrated by such as epithets ÍD DINGIR banât kalama “River, Divine Creatrix of everything” and ÍD DINGIR banât ili u ameli “River, Divine Creatrix of god and man.”272 Irhan, as a manifestation of the River-god, would appear to belong to this cosmological conception as well, as is suggested by the title dMU† abu ilÿ sa kissati “Irhan, father of all the gods” in a hymn to Nisaba,273 an epithet corroborated by the Kassite personal name dMU†-kis-ilani.274 Also of interest in terms of ascribing a cosmic character to Irhan is his early pairing with the primordial Dur (du6-úr/ ùr), “Mound,” the name at Ur for Dukug (du6-kug) “Holy Mound,”275 a cosmic region located on the eastern horizon that, in one tradition, is associated with the place of the Sun-god’s ascent, where des-

270. In other postures, e.g., coiled about the pinnacle of the kudurru or wrapped around the image base, the snake symbol similarly gives the impression of importance, e.g., Seidl, Kudurru-Reliefs, pls. 8, 18a, 22a, 30b, c; ˜gs. 7, 22, 23. 271. Lambert, AfO 41–42 (1999–2000) 154. 272. See above n. 251 for references. 273. ND 5493 i 18 (CTN 4, no. 168). Note that whereas Lambert understands dMU† here (RLA 6 [1980–83] 220), D. J. Wiseman and J. Black read [x (x)] na?-sir (CTN 4, 53: 18). For a diˆering opinion on Irhan’s cosmic role, see Wiggermann, RLA 9 (2001) 571–72. That the evidence from An II 76 is not in agreement with these facts does not, in my opinion, invalidate them, but rather points to the coexistence of two or more traditions. 274. YOR 1, 135. See Lambert, AfO 41–42 (1999–2000) 154; Lambert, RLA 6 (1980–83) 220. 275. Sallaberger Kalender, vol. 1, 129–31.

79

tinies are determined,276 and in another, is synonymous with the Apsû.277 In several Ur III texts Dur and Irhan receive oˆerings during the Akÿtu festival;278 and in the Old Babylonian God List the pair Irhan and Dur reappear, presumably as husband and wife.279 It is possibly in this light that we are to understand a ritual procedure belonging to an incantation for swollen joints which concludes “you make (the patient) cross over the river Irhan, which you have drawn (around him), seven times and seven times (back), while he crosses you say as follows: (Ea incantation).”280 Mesopotamian conceptions of cosmic geography may go some way to clarifying this allusion to seven concentric Irhans. Instructive, perhaps, is the notion of seven heavens (an) and seven earths (ki) which is also preserved in Sumerian incantations; quite possibly these regions are to be understood as superimposed, as they were in later Near Eastern traditions.281 What role these seven cosmic regions played in curing the patient is uncertain, but for our purposes this notion is, perhaps, to be taken in conjunction with the cosmographic tradition re˘ected in the so-called Babylonian Map of the World. Here the earth is surrounded by a circular band with the designation marratu “(cosmic) ocean,” a word written with the ÍD determinative and therefore regarded, as depicted on the map, as a relatively narrow and river-like body of water.282 Given the penchant of incantations for making reference to cosmographic features, the possibility certainly exists that the seven Irhans of our text are to be associated 276. “Sun-god, when you rise from the Great Mountain, when you rise from the Great Mountain, the ‘Mountain of the Spring,’ when you rise from Dukug, the place where the destinies are determined, when you rise at the place where heaven and earth embrace, at the horizon” (R. Borger, “Das dritte ‘Haus’ der Serie bÿt rimki (5R 50–51, Schollmeyer HG† Nr. 1),” JCS 21 [1967] 2–3; following W. Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, Mesopotamian Civilizations 8 [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1998], 315–16, 331). 277. Horowitz, Cosmic Geography, 307. 278. UET 3, 189, 191, 276; UET 9, 972 (broken). See Sallaberger Kalender, vol. 2, 106–8; McEwan, OrNS 52 (1983) 225. 279. TCL 15, 10: 352–53; Wiggermann, RLA 9 (2001) 571. 280. CT 23, 1:12. 281. See Horowitz, Cosmic Geography, 208–20. 282. See Horowitz, Cosmic Geography, 20–42.

80

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

with the watery boundaries or perimeters of the seven cosmic regions elsewhere attested in this genre. As dMU† emerges from the Apsû on our relief, we are again reminded that the Apsû is the ultimate source of rivers and that a particularly close relationship exists between the fresh water ocean and the River-goddess—zìg dId! ama en-gu-ra-ke4 [h]é “Be exorcised by the River-goddess, the mother of the Abzu.”283 Not to be overlooked when taking into account the image and the con˘uence of learned traditions is the inscription itself. As d MU† manipulates the solar disk in the relief, we recall that the inscription speci˜es that the clay model was found on the western bank of the Euphrates (ina eberti Puratti sa balri ereb samsi innamir-ma “it was found across the Euphrates— on the western bank” [iii 22–25]). Perhaps herein lies a play on Irhan as a designation for the western branch of the Euphrates, the Arahtu. Of course, the Euphrates ultimately leads us back to †amas, for a hymn to Nisaba couples the two: Idiglat sa ina mahar Enlil izziz(z)u . . . Puratti sa ina mahar †amas izziz(z)u “the Tigris which served Enlil . . . the Euphrates which served †amas”284—an association that ˜nds its tacit expression in the shared writing of the river, ídUD.KIB. NUN, and the deity’s cult center, UD.KIB.NUNki.285 In concluding this paper I would like to comment on the historical and historiographic nature of the SGT. Slanski has recently argued that the relief and the text portray diˆerent versions of history, that the relief is concerned with underscoring the sangû priest’s role in the endowment, while the text focuses on the king’s part.286 This view, however, is at odds with the visual and lit283. PBS 1/2, 112: 30; see Horowitz, Cosmic Geography, 338–39 for further references. 284. J. Nougayrol, “Les quatre vents,” RA 60 (1966) 73: 7 u, 10 u. 285. See Woods, “On the Euphrates,” ZA (in press). 286. K. E. Slanski, The Babylonian Entitlement narûs and Historiography (paper presented at the 45th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale: 45th International Congress of Assyriology and Near Eastern Archaeology, Cambridge, MA, July 1998); now see Slanski, JCS 52 (2000) 112 (here, however, it is claimed that while the sangû priest is the focus of the image, the narrative revolves around †amas).

eral parallels observed above. The dynamism exhibited by Nabû-nadin-sumi in the relief, by his grasping of the stool, does not necessarily dictate that he is the principal character of the scene. The lead position in this ritual performance does not equate with the starring role; rather it casts the sangû priest as intercessor—the supporting character. Clearly, the depiction of the three approaching ˜gures is to be interpreted after the fashion of the third-millennium presentation scenes and in such scenes the interceding goddess plays an anonymous, generic role. The focus is invariably on the central ˜gure, and, as discussed above, this is no more true than in the scenes of the three˜gure variety, which were reserved for individuals of particularly high status. The priest assumes the secondary role of intercessor, a part for which he is suited, given that the scene takes place within his domain, the temple, and it is in this role that he guides the stool bearing the god’s symbol into position. Parallels may be sought in the Gudea seal discussed above (˜g. 13) and the Disk of Enheduana (˜g. 39). Neither Gudea nor Enheduana— clearly the foci of their respective scenes—participates in the ritual act; rather both, like Nabûapla-iddina, oversee it. In the Gudea seal, Ningiszida plays the role of intercessor, holding, with Enki, an over˘owing vase, while Gudea is led before the seated deity. And Enheduana, motionless in a posture of pious supplication, observes as a priest pours a ritual libation.287 Furthermore, as noted above, the image makes plain the higher rank of the king vis-à-vis the sangû priest in the larger stature it accords the former. On a subtler level, the immense size of the cult statue bespeaks the king’s pre-eminent position in the history of the cult, for the scales of the sun disk and the statue re˘ect not only their relative positions within the cult, but the relative standings of the kings who eˆected each as well. The text, simi-

287. See I. J. Winter, “Women in Public: The Disk of Enheduana, The Beginnings of the O¯ce of the EN-Priestess, and the Weight of Visual Evidence,” in La femme dans le proche-orient antique: 33e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (Paris, 7–10 Juillet 1986), ed. J. M. Durand (Paris: Éditions recherche sur les civilisations, 1987), 192.

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED

81

Fig. 39. Winter in La femme dans le proche-orient antique: 33e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, 191 ˜g. 1. larly, is clear on this point. While Simbar-sipak was certainly dutiful in his installation of the sun disk, he was never accorded the divine favor that was destined for Nabû-apla-iddina, as †amas reconciled with Akkad only during the latter’s reign. It was suggested above that the account of the fortuituous discovery of a clay model, which enabled the fashioning of a new cult statue, repre-

sented a certain degree of embellishment. While the essential facts of the story may be true—that the design for the new statue was based on a clay model, such as an OB plaque in the temple’s treasury—the discovery itself is probably the product of poetic license, a literary device. This embellishment of historical facts, or stylization of the truth, ˜nds its counterpart in the relief. Certainly, the

82

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

sun disk and the cult statue represent real objects, but the archaic iconography and style employed to depict them, and the immense sizes accorded them are, similarly, visual devices. Both literally and visually, the facts are no more important than the way in which they are conveyed. Indeed, these devices are exploited to the same end. The archaizing of the image serves to legitimate the cult by establishing its great antiquity, while the historical narrative of the inscription cites the ancient precedent for the cult’s claim to certain revenues and privileges. And the bifurcated history of the cult as it pertains to these rights is duly re˘ected in both the image and the text. M. Powell has characterized the SGT as “an excellent model for clever beggary,” by which he means, if I understand him correctly, that the priests of the Ebabbar conjured up these ingenious devices in an attempt to court royal patronage.288 While this is, no doubt, true, it is a one-sided portrayal, for there existed a mutual symbiosis by which Nabû-apla-iddina, in resurrecting and richly endowing the Ebabbar, ful˜lled his divinely dictated commission “to safeguard the cultic o¯ces and rituals, establish regular oˆerings, (and) make bountiful the provisions” (iii 3–6). In so patronizing this ancient institution, he legitimated his own kingship, assuming the role of the prototypical king and thereby enlisting himself among the great rulers of Mesopotamia. Politically, Nabû-apla-iddina stood on roughly equal footing with Assurnasirpal II, preserving the traditional boundary with Assyria that was established during the Second Dynasty of Isin.289 To this must be added the account of the SGT, that he expelled the Sutians, the aggressive seminomadic peoples who had ravaged the land for at least two hundred years. These successes formed the foundation upon which a cultural and religious renaissance could ˘ourish. Under his guidance Babylonia was able to enjoy a golden age unknown since the days of Nebuchadnezzar I. Editions of the Utukki lemn¿ti incantation series and, very possibly, the Erra Epic were composed 288. Powell, ZA 81 (1991) 30. 289. Brinkman PKB, 181–92.

during his reign, while the legal medium of the kudurru was revived after a century-long hiatus.290 The king’s patronage of temples extended to Uruk where he established regular meat-oˆerings for Eanna.291 However, his ability to restore the cult of †amas—to succeed where his predecessors had failed—could very well have represented the crowning achievement of a reign that lasted no less than thirty-three years. The Neo-Babylonian kings have often been heralded as the great antiquarians of Mesopotamian history. They rebuilt the temples of Babylonia with a rigor that bordered upon fanaticism and took immense pride in searching out the foundation deposits of kings of the distant past. Nebuchadnezzar II and Nabonidus, in particular, are known to have based their royal inscriptions upon those of the Old Akkadian and Old Babylonian periods. And it is well known that Nabonidus, among other Neo-Babylonian kings, conducted systematic archeological excavations, displaying the ˜nds in what could be referred to as a museum.292 Indeed, antiquarian interests were so pervasive during this period that scholars have often considered them its de˜ning theme. Therefore, it is remarkable, in light of this shared passion for the past, that students of the Neo-Babylonian period have made scant mention of the Sun-god Tablet; for Nabû-apla-iddina proved himself to be among the greatest of Mesopotamian antiquarians two hundred years before Nabopolassar usurped the throne. It is perhaps time that we speak less of the Sun-god Tablet as an independent curiosity and more as part of the cultural continuum.

290. Brinkman PKB, 190; for further discussion regarding the dating of the Erra Epic, and the possibility of a later, 8th century date, see W. von Soden, “Etemenanki vor Asarhaddon nach der Erzählung vom Turmbau zu Babel und dem ErraMythos,” UF 3 (1971) 255–56; Cagni Erra, 78–79; and most recently, P.-A. Beaulieu, “A Land Grant on a Cylinder Seal and Assurbanipal’s Babylonian Policy,” in Studi sul vicino oriente antico dedicati alla memoria di Luigi Cagni, Istituto Universitario Orientale Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici, Series Minor 61, vol. 1, ed. S. Graziani (Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, 2000), 25–27. 291. McEwan, Iraq 45 (1983) 187–98. 292. See Winter, in Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 1785–98.

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED

83

BM 91000 (BBSt., no. 36) Previous Editions: BBSt., 120–27 (with previous editions noted on p. 120 n. 2; photographs: pls. 98– 99); Slanski, The Babylonian Entitlement narûs, 197–210; translation: Hurowitz, in Context of Scripture, vol. 2, 364–68; copy: 5R, pls. 60–61. Caption I (left): 1. sa-lam dUTU EN GAL 2. a-sib É.BABBAR.RA 3. sá qé-reb UD.KIB.NUNki

Image of †amas, the great lord, the one who dwells in the Ebabbar, which is within Sippar.

Caption II (right, above the canopy): 1. d30 dUTU u d15 ina pu-ut ZU.AB 2. ina bi-rit dMU† ti-mi †UB.ME†-ú

Sîn, †amas, and Istar depicted opposite the Apsû, between Nirah (and) the pillars.

Caption III (right, under the canopy): 1. NIMGIR dUTU 2. MU†.IGI.MIN

The herald of †amas, the two-faced snake.

Column I 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

d

UTU EN GAL-ú a-sib É.ªBABBARº.RA sá qé-reb Sip-par ki sá ina e-sá-a-ti ù dal-ha-a-ti sá KUR URIki lú Su-tu-ú lúKÚR lim-nu ú-sah-hu-ú ªúº-hal-li-qu GI†.{UR.ME† par-ªsuº-sú im-ma-su-ma si-ªkinº-sú u ME.TE.ME†-sú i-na †U.MIN ip-par-sid-ma la na-til ma-na-ma Si-im-bar-si-pak LUGAL.E GAR-sú is-ta-al-ªmaº ªpa-ni-sú la id-dinº-su sa-lam-sú u ME.TE.ME†-sú la i-mur-ma ni-ip-ha sá pa-an dUTU ú-sat-ri-sa-am-ma SÁ.DUG4-sú ú-kin-ma m É-kur-MU-TUK-si É.MA† UD.KIB.NUNki lú {AL ú-sá-as-bit ina KI.KAL u hu-ªsahº-hi sá dªKas-sú-ú-SUM-†E†º LUGAL

†amas, the great lord, the one who dwells in the Ebabbar, which is within Sippar, which, during the confusion and turmoil of Akkad, the Sutû, the wicked enemy, made unrecognizeable, destroying the plans (of the Ebabbar)— because his (†amas’s) cultic orders were forgotten, his appearance and his attributes had vanished beyond grasp and so were beheld by no one, Simbar-sipak, the king, inquired into his appearance, but (†amas) paid him no heed. Because he could not discover his image and his attributes, he enshrined the sun disk, which is (now) before †amas, established regular oˆerings (for it) and entrusted (them) to Ekur-suma-usarsi, the sangû priest of Sippar, the diviner. During the hardship and famine of (the reign of) king Kassu-nadin-ahhe,

84

26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

SÁ.DUG4 ªsu-aº-tu4 ªip-pa-riº-is-ma ªba-til sur-qi-nuº ªina Éº-ul-mas-GAR-MU LUGAL [mÉ-k]ur-MU-TUK-si ªÉ.MA† Sipº-parki lú{AL

the aforementioned food allowance was interrupted and so the oˆering came to an end. During (the reign of) king Eulmas-sakin-sumi, Ekur-suma-usarsi, the sangû priest of Sippar, the diviner,

Column II LUGAL EN-sú im-hur-ma gi-né-e dUTU ba-til iq-bi-ma 1 SÌLA NINDA.{I.A 1 SÌLA KA†.SAG 5. PAD lúsak-ni sá É-Sag-gíl 6. ina †À gi-né-e dEN 1. 2. 3. 4.

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

a-na dUTU ú-kin-ma m É-kur-MU-TUK-si É.MA† uruSip-par lú {AL i-rim 1-en gisKIRI6 KI-et URU-GIBILki ªsá qé-reb TIN.TIRkiº ªaº-na dUTU SUM-ma IGI mÉ-kur-MU-TUK-si SANGA Sip-parki lú{AL ú-sad-gíl ár-ka-nu d NÀ-A-SUM-na LUGAL KÁ.DINGIR.RAki ni-bit dAMAR.UTU na-ram dA-ni7 u d50 mu-tib lìb-bi dE4.RU6 zi-ik-ru qar-du sá ana LUGAL-ti as-mu na-ás til-pa-ni ez-zi-tì sa-kip lúKÚR lem-nu lú Su-tu-ú sá sur-bu-u hi-tu-su-un sá ana tu-ur gi-mil KUR URIki su-sub ma-ha-zi

approached the king, his lord, and said, “The regular oˆerings of †amas have ceased,” and (in response king Eulmassakin-sumi) established for †amas 1 liter of various breads and 1 liter of ˜rst-draft beer (daily) —the food allowance of the manager of Esagil (which derives) from the regular oˆerings of Marduk— and granted (this allowance) to Ekur-suma-usarsi, the sangû priest of Sippar, the diviner. 1 garden in the district of Newtown (~lu-essu), which is within Babylon, he (the king) gave to †amas, entrusting it to Ekur-suma-usarsi, the sangû priest of Sippar, the diviner. At a later time, Nabû-apla-iddina, king of Babylon, the one summoned by Marduk, beloved of Anu and Ea, the one who pleases the heart of Zarpanitum, valiant warrior, who is ˜t for kingship, the one who wields the furious tilpanu-bow, who drove out the evil enemy— the Sutians, whose sins were supreme— who, to avenge Akkad, settle cult centers,

Column III 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

na-de-e BARAG.ME† us-sur GI†.{UR.ME† sul-lum GARZA.ME† u pel-lu-de-e kun-ni sat-tuk-ki

One Line Long

erect shrines, delineate the cultic designs, safeguard the cultic o¯ces and rituals, establish regular oˆerings,

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

sur-ru-uh PAD.dMÙ†.ME† EN GAL-ú dAMAR.UTU gis GIDRI i-sar-ªtaº re-åu-ut UN.ME† e-ªpe-siº ú-mál-lu-ú qa-tus-sú d UTU EN GAL sá ªTAº UD.ME† ma-aå-ªduº-ti ªit-ti KUR URIki ikº-me-lu is-bu-su ki-ªsad-suº ina BALA dNÀ-A-SUM-na LUGAL KÁ.DINGIR.RAki sa-li-ma ir-si-ma ú-sah-hi-ra pa-ni-sú ú-sur-ti sal-mi-sú sir-pu sá ha-as-bi GAR-sú u si-ma-ti-sú ina e-bir-ti íd Pu-rat-ti sá BALA.RI dUTU.†Ú.A in-na-mir-ma md NÀ-SUM-MU É.MA† uruSip-par lú{AL ina NUMUN mÉ-kur-MU-TUK-si É.MA† uruSip-par lú{AL GI†.{UR sal-mi su-a-tu4

(and) make bountiful the food oˆerings, —the great lord, Marduk, ˜lled his hand with the just scepter to shepherd the people. †amas, the great lord, who since many days ago, in anger and wrath turned away from Akkad, in the reign of Nabû-apla-iddina, king of Babylon, came to peace and so turned hither. When a relief of his image, a ˜red clay (impression) of his appearance and attributes, was found across the Euphrates— on the western bank— Nabû-nadin-sumi, the sangû priest of Sippar, the diviner, (one) among the oˆspring of Ekur-suma-usarsi, the sangû priest of Sippar, the diviner, showed that relief of the image

Column IV 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

d

NÀ-IBILA-SUM-ªnaº LUGAL EN-sú ú-kal-lim-ªmaº d NÀ-A-SUM-na LUGAL TIN.TIRki sá DÙ-es sal-mi sú-a-tu4 qa-bu-sum-ma su-ud-gu-lu pa-nu-us-sú sal-mu sú-a-tu4 i-mur-ma pa-nu-sú ir-ti-sú i-te-li-is kab-ta-as-su ana DÙ-es sal-mi sú-a-tu4 ú-zu-un-sú ib-si-ma

14. ina né-me-qí sá dÉ-a 15. ina si-pir dNIN.ÍLDU 16. dKUG.SIG17.BÀNDA-da 17. dNIN.KUR.RA dNIN.ZADIM 18. ina ªKUG.SIG17 ru-us-si-iº 19. na4ZA.GÌN eb-bi

85

to Nabû-apla-iddina, the king, his lord, and when Nabû-apla-iddina, the king of Babylon, to whom the fashioning of such an image had been entrusted by (divine) command, beheld that image, his countenance brightened, his spirit rejoiced. To the fashioning of that image his (Nabû-nadin-sumi’s) attention was directed and so, by the skill of Ea, by the craft of Ninildu, Kusibanda, Ninkura (and) Ninzadim, with reddish gold (and) lustruous lapis-lazuli he properly prepared

86

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

sa-lam dUTU EN GAL ki-nis ú-kan-ni ina te-lil-ti sá dÉ-a u dASAL.LÚ.{I ma-har dªUTUº ªinaº É.KAR.ZA.GÌN.NA ªsáº GÚ ídPu-rat-ªtiº pi-sú im-si-ªmaº ir-ma-a su-bat-ªsuº

29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

SÍSKUR bi-bil ªlìb-biº sá GUD.MA{.ME† pag-ªlu-tiº UDU NIGA SIG5.GA kab-ru-ti ªiqº-qí-ma ina LÀL GE†TIN ªuº ZÍD.MAD.GÁ ú-tah-hi-ªdaº gisSI.GAR.ME† i-na ªu4º-mi-sú sá dNÀ-A-SUM-na ªLUGALº TIN.TIRki ªlìbº-ba-sú ih-du-ma im-me-ru zi-mu-sú UGU mdAG-SUM-MU É.MA† Sip-parki lú{AL it-ru-sa bu-ni-sú ina bu-ni-sú nam-ru-ti zi-me-sú ru-us-sú-ti SIG5.ME† IGI.MIN- sú ha-dis ip-pa-lis-su-ma [1 SÌ]LA NINDA.{I.A 1 SÌLA KA†.SAG gi-né-e dUTU la-bi-ri qá-du gisKIRI6 sá É-ul-mas-GAR-MU LUGAL m É-kur-MU-TUK-si É.MA† Sip-parki lú{AL i-ri-mu ina †À NINDA.{I.A KA†.SAG NINDA.Ì.DÉ.A UZU GUD

34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55.

the image of †amas, the great lord. By the puri˜cation rite of Ea and Asarluhi, before †amas, in the Ekarzagina, which is on the bank of the Euphrates, he washed its mouth and there (the statue) took up its residence (during the mÿs pî ritual). He made sacri˜ces, voluntary oˆerings of ˘eshy choice bulls, ˜ne fattened sheep and he made the door locks (of Ekarzagina) drip with syrup, wine, and mashatu-˘our. At that time, the heart of Nabû-apla-iddina, king of Babylon, rejoiced and his face brightened. Towards Nabû-nadin-sumi, the sangû priest of Sippar, the diviner, he directed his gaze, looking upon him joyfully with his radiant face, his ruddy features, (and) his benevolent eyes. And so 1 liter of various breads (and) 1 liter of ˜rst-draft beer, the ancient regular-oˆering of †amas, together with the garden, which Eulmas-sakin-sumi, the king, had granted to Ekur-suma-usarsi, the sangû priest of Sippar, the diviner (Nabû-apla-iddina restored); from among the various breads, ˜rst-draft beer, mirsu-confection, beef,

Column V 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

UZU UDU.NÍTA KU6.ME† SAR.ME† sá ana es-si d NÀ-A-SUM-na LUGAL TIN.TIRki a-na dUTU dA-a ù dBu-ne-ne ú

One Line Long

mutton, ˜sh, and garden produce, which, as a new (endowment), Nabû-apla-iddina, king of Babylon, established for †amas, Aya, and Bunene:

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED 7. ú-kin-nu a-hu {A.LA LUGAL 8. PAD É.MA† ina UDU.NÍTA.ME† 9. SÍSKUR LUGAL sá kal MU ÚR uzuªKU†º EGIR uzuªSAº.ME† mi-sil uzukar-si mi-sil uzuqer-bi 2 uzukur-sin-nu dug ÚTUL A.ME† UZU ina SÍSKUR GUD.ME† u UDU.NÍTA.ME 17. ªsá ka-riº-bi 18. GIM pi-i an-nim-ma

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

uzu uzu

19. ina †À 5 gis†UB.BA.ME† 20. lúKU4-É-ú-tu 21. 2–ta gis†UB.BA.ME† NINDA.{I.A 22. KA†.SAG NINDA.Ì.DÉ.A 23. UZU GUD ªUZUº UDU.NÍTA 24. KU6.{I.A úªSARº.ME† 25. lúGÍR.LÁ-ªúº-tu 26. u ú-na-at ªlìbº-bi 27. GIM pi-i 2 lúKU4-É.ME!(LÁ) 28. ina gi-né-e i-si 29. u ru-ud-di-i 30. ina GARZA URU ªZÍDº.MAD.GÁ 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.

ªkaº-ri-bi u mim-ma ªsu-ruº-ub-ti ªÉº.BABBAR.RA ma-[la] ba-sú-ú a-hu [{A].ªLAº LUGAL PAD lú[É].MA† ù 2–ta ªgisº[†UB.BA.ME†]

38. GIM pi-i 2 lúªKU4-É. ME†º 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46.

TÚG SIG5 DÙ.A.BI sá dUTU dA-a ù dBu-ne-ne GADA túg pu-ul-hu túg qar-É túg se-ri-iå-tu túg húl-la-nu túg né-bé-hu

87

half of the king’s share (is to be set aside for) the food allowance of the sangû priest; from the royal sheep sacri˜ces of the whole year (the sangû priest’s portion is): a thigh, the hide, the back, the sinews, half of the rumen, half of the intestines, two fetlocks, (and) a bowl of meat broth; from the oxen and sheep sacri˜ces of the devotees (the sangû priest’s portion) corresponds to that (decreed above for the royal sheep sacri˜ces); from the ˜ve erib-bÿti prebends (the sangû priest’s portion is): two shares of various breads, ˜rst-draft beer, mirsu-confection, beef, mutton, various ˜sh, garden produce; (from) the butcher’s prebend and the internal organs, (the sangû priest’s portion) corresponds to that (alloted to) two erib-bÿti priests; from among the regular oˆerings, be they small or be they large, according to the customs of the city, the mashatu˘our oˆerings of the devotees, and whatever the income of the Ebabbar, as much as there is, half of the king’s share (is to be set aside for) the food allowance of the sangû priest, additionally, (the sangû priest receives two portions) corresponding to that (allotted to) two erib-bÿti priests; ˜ne garments of every kind for †amas, Aya and Bunene: linen (for a) “fearsome” (pulhu-)garment, a qarbÿtu-garment, a seriåtu-garment, a hullanu-wrap, a nebehu-sash,

88

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

47. sígta-bar-ru 48. sígta-kil-tu 49. túgqar-É GAL 50. u te-lit ka-ri-bi 51. itiBÁR UD.7.KÁM 52. túgse-ri-iå-tu 53. itiGUD UD.10.KÁM 54. túgse-ri-iå-tu 55. itiKIN UD.3.KÁM túgqar-É

red-dyed wool, blue-purple-dyed wool, a large qarbÿtu-garment, as well as (any) income from the devotees; for the seventh of Nisannu: a seriåtu-garment, for the tenth of Aiaru: a seriåtu-garment, for the third of Ul¿lu: a qarbÿtu-garment,

Column VI

24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

DU6 UD.7.KÁM túgªqar-Éº APIN UD.15.ªKÁMº túg se-ri-iå-tu iti †E UD.15.KÁM túgªqarº-É PAP 6 TÚG SIG5 sá ªkalº MU na-dan LUGAL sá dUTU ªdºA-a u dBu-ªneº-ne d NÀ-A-ªSUMº-na LUGAL TIN.ªTIRºki d NÀ-ªSUMº-MU É.MA† Sip-par ki ªlúº{AL ARAD-su i-rim u ana baq-ri NU.TUK-e ik-nu-uk-ma ana u4-ªum sa-aº-ti SUM-ªnaº ina ka-nak tup-ªpi sú-a-túº md AMAR.UTU-MU-GI.ªNAº A m{ab-ban lúKIR4.ªDABº m TUK-si-ªDINGIRº A mdÉ-a-re-man-ni ªlúºSUKKAL md AMAR.UTU-DUB-ªNUMUNº A mTam-ba-sad-dar lú ªGARº-U†4 u mdAMAR.UTU-TIN-su-ªiqº-bi A mARAD-ªdÉº-a lú EN.NAM iz-za-ªazº-zu TIN.TIRki itiBÁR UD.2ª0.KÁMº MU.31.KÁM dNÀ-A-SUM-ªnaº

29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.

LUGAL TIN.TIRªkiº GABA.RI na4KI†IB LUGAL sá sip-re-e-ti man-nu ar-ku-ú sá ina É.GAL sal-tis iz-za-az-zu-ma

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

iti iti

for the seventh of Tasrÿtu: a qarbÿtu-garment, for the ˜fteenth of Arahsamnu: a seriåtu-garment, for the ˜fteenth of Addaru: a qarbÿtu-garment, a total of 6 ˜ne garments for the whole year, the royal gift to †amas, Aya, and Bunene, Nabû-apla-iddina, king of Babylon entrusted (all of the above) (to) Nabû-nadin-sumi, the sangû priest of Sippar, the diviner, his servant. And, to prevent any future claims (against this endowment) he placed it under seal and thereby granted it for perpetuity. At the sealing of that tablet Marduk-suma-ukÿn, son of {abban, the kartappu (or sakrumas) o¯cer, Rasi-ili, son of Ea-remanni, the vizier, Marduk-sapik-zeri, son of Tambasaddar(?), the sakin temi o¯cial, and Marduk-balassu-iqbi, son of Arad-Ea, the bel pÿhati o¯cial, were all in attendance in Babylon on the twentieth of Nisannu, the thirty-˜rst year (of the reign) of Nabû-aplaiddina, king of Babylon. (This is) a copy of the sealed o¯cial royal document. Whosoever in the future, haughtily occupies the palace and so,

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED

35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.

ni-din-ti LUGAL NÀ-A-SUM-na ú-baq-qa-ru-ma ana sá-nim-ma i-sar-ra-ku ina †À NINDA.{I.A nu-sur-ra-a GAR-nu-ma ana NAM i-man-nu-ú

41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55.

lu-u ana ram-ni-sú GUR-ru u ina mim-ma si-pir {UL-tì na4 NA.RÚ.A sú-a-tu ú-hal-la-qu LÚ su-a-tu4 ina a-mat dUTU dA-a u dBu-ne-ne EN.ME† E†.BAR DINGIR.ME† GAL.ME† MU-sú lih-liq lil-la-qit NUMUN-ªsúº ina un-si u †À.GAR-e na-pis-tus liq-ti lim-qut sal-mat-su-ma ªqéº-bi-ra a-a ir-si

d

General Commentary As one of the literary highlights of the sparsely attested Post-Kassite period, this text is essential for understanding the literary diction and grammar of the time, all the more so given that the text is complete, of considerable length, and contains a large number of syllabic spellings. However, BBSt., no. 36 warrants closer study not only for the light it sheds on the literary language of the dark age between the time of Nebuchadnezzar I and the Chaldean kings, but also because a shadow of doubt continues to hang over the authenticity of the text.293 The following analysis strongly suggests that BBSt., no. 36 is indeed an authentic product of the ninth century B.C.E.; so true is the orthography and grammar to the standards of the MB kudurru corpus, that the text appears to be well beyond the skills of the much later Chaldean forgers who produced such ˘awed works as the Cruciform monument.294 It is clear 293. See above, The Inscription; cf. Gelb, JNES 8 (1949) 348 n. 12. 294. See above, The Inscription; Powell, ZA 81 (1991) 21.

89

having laid claim to the gift of king Nabû-apla-iddina, bestows it upon some other, or who counts it among the property of the the province, thereby decreasing the food allowance, or who appropriates it as his own, or by some work of evil destroys this stele, as for that man, by the command of †amas, Aya, and Bunene, lords of decision, the great gods, may his name vanish! May his seed be uprooted! Through hunger and famine may his life come to an end! May his corpse fall to the ground, yet there be no one to bury it!

that Nabû-apla-iddina not only resurrected the kudurru as a means of commemorating land grants, privileges, and incomes, but also revitalized the archaizing Middle Babylonian dialect in which such entitlements were traditionally expressed;295 for despite its ˜rm, albeit early, NeoBabylonian date (ca. 856; year 31), the language of the text is nearly identical to that of the MB kudurrus of several hundred years earlier.296 In accord with the poetic style of the narrative and imprecations, in some instances the text displays characteristics of SB as well as other purposeful OB archaisms. 295. Note J. Aro’s comments in StOr 20, 15: “Auch würde man von vornherein damit rechnen, dass ein literarischer Text nicht in reinem Dialekt, sondern in einer Sprache, die ältere Vorbilder nachahmt, geschrieben ist—ist das doch schon oft bei den Kudurrus der Fall.” 296. Concerning other late kudurrus, Aro comments: “Die Grenze bei Kudurrus ist (vielleicht willkürlich) um 1000 v.Chr. gezogen worden, obgleich schon früher (besonders um Nabûkudurri-usurs I Zeit) Merkmale vorzukommen beginnen, die für das Neubabylonische charakteristisch sind, und umgekehrt auch in späteren Kudurrus die alte Sprache ziemlich gut nachgeahmt wird” (StOr 20, 18).

90

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

Consistent with the syllabaries of MB and later, a relatively high percentage of CVC signs is employed, accounting for 21% of all syllabic signs. However, CVm signs are generally not used in this text to express historical spellings with mimation, e.g., -tu4 (TUM), -rù (RUM), -tì (TIM), -lu4 (LUM), etc. Although such writings were frequently employed in MB letters and documents, their use in the contemporaneous kudurru corpus was traditionally less pronounced. 297 In BBSt., no. 36, CVm spellings with mimation account for only 5% of CVC signs and 1% of all syllabic values.298 The few historical spellings of this type that do occur are those that are fairly frequent in MB kudurrus, i.e., to express the third-person/ demonstrative pronoun,299 su-a-tu4 (i 26, iii 30, iv 5, 8, 12, vi 45; with †Ú: vi 17, 43), and, in certain cases, divine names,300 dA-ni7 (ii 21). Beyond these attestations, there are only two other occurrences of spellings of this type: ez-zi-tì (ii 25) and {ULtì (vi 42). Despite the high frequency of CVC signs in BBSt., no. 36, writings of the type CVC1-C1V for cvc1v (i.e., with false consonantal doubling) are not attested. Likewise writings of the type V-CV for -vc (i.e., with otiose ˜nal vowel), and -VC for -cv (i.e., omission of ˜nal vowel with -VC), both of which are common even in early NB,301 do not occur. The only possible orthographic aberration revealing of its NB date is the occurrence of a -CV1C sign for -cv1cv2, i.e., omission of ˜nal vowel with -CVC: túgqarbÿtu is consistently spelled túgqarbit (v 43, 49, 55; vi 1, 4).302 However, this proba-

297. Aro, StOr 20, 24. 298. For the bene˜t of comparison, note that a sample of NB letters from the Kuyunjik collection exhibits a similar distribution: CVC signs account for 11.3% of all syllabic values, but only 2.6% show mimation. In a sample of OB letters, however, 85.3% of CVC signs show mimation (Woodington, “A Grammar of the Neo-Babylonian Letters,” 14). 299. “Besonders gern wird in fast allen Kudurrus su-a-tu4 geschrieben. In den späteren Kudurrus fallen Schreibungen dieser Art allmählig fort, nur su-a-tu4 ist auˆallend langlebig, so dass es noch BBST. 36 IV 8 vorkommt” (Aro, StOr 20, 24). 300. Aro, StOr, 24. 301. See Brinkman, WO 5 (1969) 39–50; Hyatt, Final Vowels; de Vaan, “Ich bin eine Schwertklinge des Königs.” For similar orthographic characteristics of NA, see Brinkman, BiOr 23 (1966) 293–96; Deller, OrNS 31 (1962) 7–26, 186–96.

bly represents a playful writing, túgqar-É for qarbÿtu given the otherwise meticulous indication of ˜nal vowels in this text. As is common in MB, double consonants are consistently indicated in the script and contracted ˜nal vowels are written with an extra vowel sign. Among morphologically long vowels, in accord with MB orthography, only the feminine plural is written plene, e.g., dal-haa-ti (i 5); sip-re-e-ti (vi 31).303 The common NB practice of indicating vowel length with an aleph is not attested. Other orthographic conventions of this text include †U as the 3rd pers. poss. suf. on verbs and †Ú as the corresponding su¯x on nouns; DI† for ana, except before dUTU where it is spelled syllabically, a-na, (also, A† for ina, except i 11 and iv 35); U for the conjunction u. Contiguous vowels regularly contract in a manner consistent with MB and later dialects, with the notable exception of the archaizing form suatu (i 26; iii 30; iv 5, 8, 12; vi 17, 43, 45); kudurrus tend to exhibit both the uncontracted form304 and, as noted above, the historical spelling with -tu4, as deliberate archaisms. nC1 is written as C1C1 only for /n/ of the N-stem and verbs I-n, e.g., immasûma (i 9), ipparsid (i 11), ipparis-ma (i 27), iqqÿma (iv 32), ippaliss¿-ma (iv 46), izzazz¿ (vi 26), izzazz¿-ma (vi 34); before possessive su¯xes, the feminine marker, and the enclitic -ma, the assimilation is not expressed in the writing, e.g., sikinsu (i 10), uzunsu (iv 13), nidinti (vi 35), ukÿn-ma (i 20; ii 7). Three further morphographemic writings, involving stem-˜nal dentals and the possessive su¯x -su, are likewise attested, e.g., ki-sad-su (iii 14), subat-su (iv 28), sal-mat-su-ma (vi 54); cf. kabtassu (iv 11), ippaliss¿-ma (iv 46). Additionally, there are several other features reminiscent of OB phonology and lexicon that are typical of the very highest standards of the archaizing kudurru dialect: /s/ does not appear as /l/ before dentals as is elsewhere common in SB/ MB, e.g., istal-ma (i 14); 302. For this orthographic phenomenon in early NB, see de Vaan, “Ich bin eine Schwertklinge des Königs,” 105; Hyatt, Final Vowels, 10–12. 303. Aro, StOr 20, 28. 304. Note that the uncontracted form is rare in SB as well; see B. R. M. Groneberg, Syntax, Morphologie und Stil der jungbabylonischen “hymnischen” Literatur, FAOS 14/1 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1987), 114.

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED in the D and † stem preterites, the /a/ of the second syllable does not undergo partial assimilation to the /i/ of the following syllable, e.g., usasbit (i 23), usadgil (ii 17), usahhira (iii 18), ukallimma (iv 2), ukanni (iv 21), utahhida (iv 34); with ˜nite verbs II-å, the aleph never occurs as a strong consonant, e.g., is-ta-al-ma (i 14), ú-kin-ma (i 20, ii 7), i-rim (ii 10), i-ri-mu (iv 53), ir-ti-sú (iv 9) (cf. re-åu-ut [iii 9], ma-aå-du-ti [iii 12]); kalu305 is used in lieu of MB gabbu, e.g., kal satti (v 9; vi 5). Case endings on syllabically spelled nouns and adjectives display the following characteristics: a) With the exception of the enumeration of garments in v 42–vi 4, which is written in a rather telegraphic style and where the nominative case is used for the expected accusative, case endings are consistently assigned according to the MB paradigm to an accuracy of over 91%, i.e., -u (nom. sg.; e.g., limnu [i 6], zikru [ii 23]); -i (gen. sg.; e.g., tilpani [ii 25], puratti [iv 26]); -a (acc. sg.; e.g., nipha [i 18], isarta [iii 8]); -ÿ (gen./acc. pl.; e.g., mahazÿ [ii 30], baqrÿ [vi 14]); -¿ (nom. pl. before poss. suˆ., e.g., pars¿su [i 9], pan¿su [iv 9]); -ÿ (gen./acc. pl. before poss. suˆ., e.g., b¿nÿsu [iv 42], panÿsu [i 15]). b) With the possible exception of the writing túg qar-É (v 43, 49, 55; vi 1, 4), discussed above, no case endings are omitted in the writing.306 The following case endings and forms do not conform to MB standards: nom. sg.: suatu (i 26; vi 45)—frozen uncontracted OB gen./acc. used for nom. as well. gen. sg.: lemnu (ii 26)—lúKÚR lem-nu possibly attracted to the nom. because of indeclinable lúSutu-ú in (ii 27).307 acc. sg.: salmu (iv 8)—expected for acc. sg. in SB/NB;308 labÿri (iv 48). gen. pl.: lúKU4-É-ú-tu (v 20)—frozen form, prebends are often indeclinable in NB;309 cf. the grammatically ambiguous lúGÍR.LÁ-ªúº-tu (v 25). 305. For the use of kalu instead of gabbu in MB, see Aro, StOr 20, 63–64. 306. See Hyatt, Final Vowels, 10–13, for the otherwise frequent omission of ˜nal short vowels even in early NB. 307. For proper nouns in MB, see Aro, StOr 20, 65–67. 308. See GAG, paradigm 1; Woodington, “A Grammar of Neo-Babylonian Letters,” 63–65. 309. See CAD E sub erib bÿti.

91

The locative-adverbial ending -um is used twice for poetic emphasis, i.e., qatussu (iii 10); panussu (iv 7). The ˜fty free bound forms, i.e., those syllabically expressed, are uniformly correct according to the standards of OB/ MB, with the possible exception of ahu (v 7; v 35). The twenty-three bound forms before su¯xes, likewise, agree with their OB/ MB counterparts, although there is one instance, at the end of the text, of a polysyllabic feminine noun assuming a bound form that is typical of OB literary diction and SB, i.e., salmass¿ma ([vi 54] for prose salamtas¿-ma). In tandem with this spelling, we also encounter one of the two apocopated su¯xes attested in this text, i.e., napistus (vi 53), which is also diagnostic of these dialects (the other attestation is hÿt¿sun [ii 28]). The choice of these two spellings at the end of the inscription and the use of the more literary salamtu rather than pagru,310 coupled, as well, with the inclusion of two pivot constructions in vi 50– 51 and vi 53–54 (see below), collectively provide the conclusion of the text with a ˜tting poetic ˘ourish. The verb forms are identical to those of the OB/ MB paradigms. As is standard in MB kudurrus, the preterite, rather than the perfect, is used as the main tense for expressing the past.311 There are only two instances of the perfect, i.e., irtÿs¿ (iv 9), ÿtelis (iv 10) (in tandem), serving, as in OB, to emphasize a critical event in the narrative. The syntax is marked by the frequent use of the pivot construction, subj./obj.-verb(-ma)-verb-subj./obj. for poetic eˆect, i.e., i 6–8, 10–12, 26–28; iii 11–14, 17–18; iv 5–7, 9–11, 27–28, 38–39; vi 50–51, 53–54. Notes Caption I: dUTU EN GAL a-sib É.BABBAR.RA sá qé-reb UD.KIB.NUNki serves as the incipit, or title, of the tablet, reiterated in i 1–3 of the inscription and inscribed ˜ve times on the coˆer BM 91004. The use of captions, as a means of correlating the relief with the text, was an established convention of kudurru design during the reign 310. See the discussion in CAD †/1 sub salamtu. 311. Aro, StOr 20, 81.

92

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

of Nabû-apla-iddina. Of the four kudurrus with captions, three are datable to his reign (BBSt., nos. 28, 29, and, of course, our text 36); the only other kudurru with captions belongs to the reign of Nabû-mukÿn-apli, BBSt., no. 9. See the discussion in Slanski, The Babylonian Entitlement narûs, 133–34. Caption II: For timmu ‘pole, post, pillar, column,’ see AHw. 1360a. The lack of the expected conjunction, u, ˜nds parallels among phrases of the type birÿt GN GN2 (GN3); birÿt TN TN2; and birÿti PN PN2 (CAD B sub birÿt). For the interpretation of Captions II and III oˆered here, see A. Poebel, AJSL 52 (1936) 111–14 (also Jacobsen, in Ancient Israelite Religion, 31 nn. 21–24). Slanski mistakingly reads dINNIN for d15 in the ˜rst line of the caption (The Babylonian Entitlement narûs, 198). Caption III: NIMGIR dUTU MU†.IGI.MIN possibly conceals a secondary reading of AGA dUTU sir/sàr-íni MIN “crown/disk of †amas, s/zarinnu of †amas” (or AGA dUTU sir/sàr-ini4 “crown/disk of †amas, s/zarinnu”), with both an assonantal, or paronomastic, play on zarinnu (or sarinnu) plausibly ‘a decorated stand or support for precious objects,’ (CAD Z sub zarinnu B; cf. Schaudig, AOAT 256, 381–82 n. 459) and a play on the the dual meanings of agû ‘crown’ and secondarily ‘(light emitting) disk, corona’ (CAD A/1 sub agû mng. 2; see also E. Weidner, “Beiträge zur babylonischen Astronomie,” BA 8 [1911], 23–52; PSD A/3 sub aga A Bil. 4 and 5), the latter meaning with reference to the niphu ‘sun disk’ of the inscription and relief. Such secondary readings would, likewise, allow two interpretations of Caption III, “The herald of †amas, the two-faced snake,” and “The herald of †amas, the zarinnustand,” providing a play on the two “supports” of the god’s emblem as depicted in the relief—the two-faced snake provides support from above, the zarinnu-stand, if this identi˜cation is indeed correct, from below. In this connection note that P. Michalowski proposes a word play that involves the Nabonidus cylinder, YOS 1, 45, which is similarly concerned with serpents and serpentlike creatures, i.e., basamu and serussu, and the well-known Nebuchadnezzar I kudurru, BBSt.,

no. 6, which is crowned with a snake, probably symbolic of Nirah (“The Doors of the Past,” EretzIsrael 27 [2003] 136*–52*). In one Nabonidus inscription, a zarinnu stand is closely associated with the tiara of †amas (VAB 4, Nbn. 7). i 1–8: The antecedent of sa in line 4 may refer to either †amas or the Ebabbar and is therefore ambiguous—perhaps purposefully so, embracing a double entendre. The Ebabbar is taken as the (primary) referent given the close association of usurtu ‘drawing, plan, design’ with buildings. The inscription thereby moves from the more general to the more speci˜c, from the chaos in Akkad, to the destruction of the Ebabbar, and, ˜nally, to the disruption of the cult and the loss of the cult statue. The NP of 1–8 is topicalized (note GAL-ú in 1), with †amas resumed by the expected pronominal su¯x in i 7 and i 8; cf. the topicalized phrase of ii 18–iii 6, which is resumed in iii 10. For the relatively high frequency of anacoluthon in MB, see GAG §183c. i 9: The enclitic particle -ma is used in MB (i.e., the MB kudurru dialect employed in this text) with much of the same functional range as in OB, i.e., for expressing conjuction with logical subordination (Aro, StOr 20, 136–45). i 10: sikinsu u simat¿su construed as a collective, given that the verbs in i 11, 12 are in the singular; simatu is coupled with siknu also in iii 21, and with salmu in i 16. For a similar use of the term siknu with cult statues, note: ilani u istarati . . . sa . . . ÿkilu sikinsun “the (statues of) gods and goddesses . . . whose . . . features had become dulled” (Borger, Esarh., 23 Ep. 32: 9–12); cf. assum istu ¿mÿ r¿q¿ti paras enti masû-ma la uddû sikinsu “because since ancient days the o¯ce of the high priestess had been forgotten and her characteristics were not described anywhere” (YOS 1, 45 i 26–27 [Nbn.]). i 13: LUGAL.E is probably for simple sarru during this period (vs. LUGAL Eki = sar Babili), see Borger, Zeichenliste, no. 308; Brinkman PKB, 167–68; Brinkman MSKH, 405. i 15: A play on the common idiom pan¿ nadanu meaning ‘to pay attention’ (see CAD N/1 sub nadanu mng. 2 panu b) and its literal meaning in

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED

this context, “he (†amas) did not give his face,” i.e., “†amas did not reveal his face,” as there is a continual theme throughout this section of the narrative of appearance vs. disappearance, visibility vs. invisibility (see Final Remarks above; also Jacobsen, in Ancient Israelite Religion, 31 n. 18; Slanski, JCS 52 (2000) 109; Slanski, The Babylonian Entitlement narûs, 217). i 18: For the correct identi˜cation of niphu as the sun disk of the relief, see Brinkman, RA 70 (1976) 183–84. On the kudurru of Nazi-Maruttas (MDP 2, 90 iv 12), niphu also refers to the sun disk depicted on the relief. For other instances in which the text of the kudurru makes explicit reference to images on the relief, note MDP 2, 89 iii 16f. (NaziMaruttas); MDP 2, 110 vii 26f. (Meli-†ipak); BBSt., no. 5 iii 25–33 (Marduk-apla-iddina); ZA 65 (1975) 58 ii 76–79 (Marduk-sapik-zeri); VAS 1, 36 vi 2–3 (Nabû-suma-iskun); see the discussion in Slanski, The Babylonian Entitlement narûs, 127–43. i 19: See Relief, b. Sun Disk for discussion. The verb usatrisamma probably refers to Simbarsipak’s installation of the sun disk within †amas’s shrine for lack of a proper cult statue, i.e., nipha sa pan †amas usatrisamma “he enshrined the sun disk which is (now) before †amas” (i 18–19), and not to the arrangment depicted on the SGT. This interpretation of the passage assumes the † stem causative of tarasu with the meaning ‘to extend a roof, shade, or protective awning’, e.g., eli DN . . . sul¿lsu atrus-ma ukÿn taransu “I stretched its roof (of the paramahu over Marduk) and set its awning in place” (Streck Asb., 148 i 31; also Bauer Asb. 1, pl. 57 81–2–4, 212: 6; Thompson Esarh., pl. 14 i 37 [Asb.]; see CAD T sub tarasu A mng. 2d [forthcoming]; AHw. sub tarasu(m) G 4, † 10). Alternatively, it is also possible to understand the verb in this context as the † stem causative of its related G meaning ‘to place, set up, install’ or, in its intransitive sense, ‘to stand (before)’. For tarasu with the meaning ‘to set up,’ see B. Pongratz-Leisten, Ina sumi ÿrub: Die kulttopographische und ideologische Programmatik der akÿtu-Prozession in Babylonien und Assyrien im I. Jahrtausend v. Chr., Baghdader Forschungen 16 (Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1994) 167–69. With this meaning tarasu corre-

93

sponds to kunnu or sursudu (note the correspondence ta-[ra-su] = su-su-rù ‘to put, to bring in order’ [† of eseru], semantically similiar to the D stem of kânu [Leichty Izbu, 220: 308]). In late second-millennium Canaanite dialects, tarasu appears to have replaced older kunnu or sursudu; see C. Zaccagnini, “Notes on the Pazarcik Stele,” SAA Bulletin 7 [1993] 62–63; J. Green˜eld and A. Shaˆer, “Notes on the Akkadian-Aramaic Bilingual Statue from Tell Fekherye,” Iraq 45 [1983] 115). Further, our passage shares a common idiom with a number of attestations in employing the prepositional phrase (ana) pan(i) (for the NB/LB use of pan(i) for ana pan, as in our text, see GAG §115l). A great deal of the evidence for this sense of tarasu(m) is of ˜rst-millennium date and is found in ritual contexts, often concerned, as in our text, with the placement of cultic objects. As noted already by F. Thureau-Dangin, “Tarâsu [sic], avec le sens de ‘diriger (sous-entendu: sa face)’ vers tel objet ‘se placer dans telle direction,’ est fréquent dans nos textes . . .” (RAcc., 94 n. 7). For evidence of tarasu with this meaning, see CAD T sub tarasu A mngs. 5a, c, 12c, 14 [forthcoming]; AHw. sub tarasu(m) mngs. G 6c, † 8, 9. Obviously, understanding the verb with this meaning, i.e., “he installed the sun disk” need not be at odds with the argument put forth above that the passage refers to Simbar-sipak’s earlier installation of the sun disk within †amas’s shrine. i 21: For the correct reading of the PN mÉ-kurMU-TUK-si as Ekur-suma-usarsi, see comm. to vi 20. i 28: ªBAº miscopied as ª†Uº in 5R, pls. 60–61. ii 4: Note also RA 16 (1919) 128 ii 10 (kudurru of Marduk-zakir-sumi), where the kalû’s prebend (i.e., kalûtu), likewise, consists of an income of 1 liter of various breads and 1 liter of ˜rst-draft beer. ii 12: According to Tintir V 95–96, the Newtown district was located in the north-east corner of Babylon, adjacent to the Kullab district and in the area between the Istar Gate and the Marduk Gate (George Topographical Texts, 26). ii 18f.: Topicalization of the NP (ending in iii 6) by preposing, with the phrase in the nominative case, e.g., zikru qardu ii 23; the NP is resumed in iii 10 (see also comm. to i 1–3).

94

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

ii 30f.: For other instances of mahazu in conjunction with parakku, see CAD M/1 sub mahazu mng. 2b. iii 9: ªPIº miscopied as ªGALº in 5R, pls. 60–61. iii 13: KUR omitted in BBSt., 123, and miscopied as KAM in 5R, pls. 60–61. iii 19: For ‘relief ’ as the appropriate translation of usurtu in this context, see Barrelet, Figurines et reliefs, 38; also CAD S sub salmu mng. b–1u and CAD S sub sirpu B mng. 1 (see comm. to iii 20). iii 20: sirpu ‘˜red (clay) object’ CAD S, 209; translated as “un pressage (estampage)” Barrelet, Figurines et reliefs, 39; see also C. Walker and M. B. Dick, “The Mesopotamian mÿs pî Ritual,” in Born in Heaven Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. B. Dick (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 61 n. 10. Other translations of the phrase usurti salmÿsu sirpu sa hasbi (lit.: “relief of his image, a ˜red [object] of clay”) have included “baked clay drawing,” “a colored reproduction of his statue of baked clay” (i.e., a reproduction on a colored clay plaque), or “a kiln-˜red clay mold showing a relief with his (†amas’s) likeness,” as summarized by Hallo, in Scripture in Context 2, 13. As pointed out by Walker and Dick, Barrelet is probably correct in interpreting the object allegedly found on the west bank of the Euphrates as an impression or mold, based not only the abundance of such objects from Mesopotamia (see Barrelet, Figurines et reliefs), but also in light of the clay molds (BM 91001 and 91002) in the SGT assemblage, which were possibly executed on analogy with this “discovery.” However, if this interpretation is correct, then the meaning ‘impression, mold’ ascribed to sirpu derives from the context alone, and is not, as suggested by Barrelet, inherent to the semantics of this lexeme. Barrelet understands sirpu as stemming from a verb sarapu ‘to press,’ following Lambert and others (Lambert BWL, 287 ad 108, 110), who argue for this meaning based on a presumed correspondence with the Arabic sarapa. However, as pointed out in CAD S sub sarapu A, all the evidence for a putative sarapu ‘to press’ can actually be shown to belong to sarapu ‘to burn,’ based on Sumerian correspondences and bilingual passages. Barrelet’s argument that sirpu cannot

indicate ‘kiln-˜red’ because that notion is already implicit to the meaning of hasbu is not entirely convincing (Barrelet, Figurines et reliefs, 29, 39), as sirpu may designate a speci˜c ˜ring process and hasbu, a more generic term for terracotta. Moreover, sirpu is used regularly with reference to tablets used as master texts from which copies were made; such tablets are likely to have been baked. In these cases sirpu is often modi˜ed by the adjective samu ‘red,’ again suggesting a ˜ring process (see CAD S sub sarapu A). iv 9–10: The only occurrences of the perfect in this text, used here with the same functional range as in OB, emphasizing the central event of this section of the narrative. iv 12–17: This section of the inscription is to be compared to the Erra Epic I 150f. which is similarly concerned with the construction of divine statues. It is assumed that the agent of iv 12–34 is Nabû-nadin-sumi rather than Nabû-apla-iddina (see Seidl, ZA 91 [2001] 123 n. 13). This portion of the inscription has been recently treated by Walker and Dick, as it pertains to the fashioning of cult statues and the role of the mÿs pî ritual therein (mÿs pî, 58–63). For the characteristics and epithets of the artisan deities Ninildu, Kugsigbanda, Ninkura, and Ninzadim, see the ample evidence collected in Walker and Dick, mÿs pî, 62–63 nn. 14–17. iv 25: É-kar-za-gìn-na ‘House of the Quay of Lapis Lazuli’ or more probably ‘House of the Quay of Splendor’ (for the latter translation, see E. Cassin, La splendeur divine: Introduction à l’Étude de la mentalité mésopotamienne [Paris: Mouton & Co., 1968], 114–16); in various lexical series and bilinguals, za-gìn (and related lexemes) is equated with ebbu, ellu, and namru (see the respective CAD lexical sections and bilingual evidence in CAD Z, sub zaqnu, ziqnu, e.g., su6.mú za.gìn.na : sa ziqna elletu zaqnu [BA 5 (1906) 684: no. 37: 14f.]). Ekarzagina was the temple of Ea located in the Eridu district of Babylon, within the Esagil precinct on the left bank of the Euphrates (between Esagil proper and the river bank) (George Topographical Texts, 300–303); note: É.KAR.ZA.GÌN.NA [bÿt] d[Ea] sa qereb Esagil “Ekarzagina temple of Ea in Esagil” (Streck Asb.,

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED

246: 65–66); see also W. L. Moran, “A New Fragment of DIN.TIR.KI = Babilu and En¿ma Elis vi 61–66,” in Studia Biblica et Orientalia III: Oriens Antiquus, Analecta Biblica 12 (Rome: Ponti˜cio Istituto Biblico, 1959), 259 n. 7. In Tintir IV 3, Ekarzagina is called “gate of the Apsû” (bab apsî) (George Topographical Texts, 59: 3). Ekarzagina is the location of the mÿs pî and pÿt pî ceremonies, and hence, the place where divine statues were fashioned, concecrated, and brought to life; the connection with Ea is clear in light of this god’s role in creation and magic (George Topographical Texts, 302). Our text is the earliest known historical inscription to mention Ekarzagina as the place of the mÿs pî ceremony; the temple is later mentioned by Esarhaddon (Borger Esarh., 89: 21–24; cf. 91 §60: 10f.) and Nabonidus (MVAG 1 [1986] 78 viii 16f.). For further references and the role of the Ekarzagina in the mÿs pî ritual see Walker and Dick, mÿs pî, 63 n. 18; George Topographical Texts, 300–303. iv 33: For the understanding of dispu with the possible meaning ‘syrup,’ rather than ‘honey’ in ritual contexts, see S. Maul, Zukunftsbewältigung: Eine Untersuchung altorientalischen Denkens anhand der babylonisch-assyrischen Löserituale (Namburbi), Baghdader Forschungen 18 (Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern), 51 n. 54. Maul is followed by C. Walker and M. Dick, The Induction of the Cultic Image in Ancient Mesopotamia: The Mesopotamian Mÿs Pî Ritual, SAA Literary Texts 1 (Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project), 14 and n. 35. iv 46f.: The enclitic -ma connects ippalissu to the next main-clause verb in vi 13; all the items between these verbs serve as the direct object of râmu in vi 13—presummably, the sangû priest, as the chief administrator of the temple, is entrusted with the various commodities and incomes for distribution, i.e., garments and incomes for †amas, Aya, and Bunene (cf. ii 11–17 where the sangû priest is entrusted with the garden plot for †amas), as well as with his own incomes that derive from the king’s share and the erib bÿt¿tu- and tabih¿tu-prebends, among other sources. The succinct style of the decree is the cause of some confusion. Clearly, the sangû priest receives the 1

95

liter of various breads and the 1 liter of ˜rst-draft beer as a symbolic gesture—the very same income granted to his forefather who likewise held this o¯ce (see above, The Inscription). The main di¯culty is with the relationship between the erib bÿt¿tu- and tabih¿tu-prebends, on the one hand, and the sangû priest’s share, on the other (note the absence of an expected ina at the beginning of v 25)—is Nabû-apla-iddina here establishing incomes for the erib bÿt¿tu- and tabih¿tu-prebends, or simply decreeing that the sangû priest’s share is to be derived, in part, from these prebends? In agreement with Hurowitz (in Context of Scripture, vol. 2, 364–68), the latter, more straightforward, scenario is assumed here. That this portion of the inscription would deal exclusively with Nabûnadin-sumi’s reward is in accord with the emphasis placed on the role of the sangû priest elsewhere in the inscription. v 7: Slanski translates ahu ‘payout’ with the comment, “ahu is the bound form of ahû usually meaning ‘wages’ ” (The Babylonian Entitlement narûs, 206 and 210 ad v 7); King translates, “the share pertaining to the king” (BBSt., 124). However, we clearly have in this instance an attestation of the phrase ahi zitti ‘half share,’ which is quite frequent in NB legal and economic phraseology (See CAD A/1 sub ahu B mngs. 5 a, b ; and CAD Z sub zittu mngs. 1a–10u, 1c–5u, 2e). In a late copy of the contemporaneous Eanna meat distribution text, OECT 1, pls. 20–21 (McEwan, Iraq 45 [1983] 187–98), the king’s daily share (PAD.{I.A LUGAL) reveals several close parallels to our text, consisting of: a shoulder (uzuimittu[ZAG.UDU]), the rump (uzurapastu[GI†.KUN]), ribs (uzuselu[TI]) (2, 51); a thigh (uzupemu[ÚR]), the back (uzuarkatu[EGIR]) (6, 30, 55; cf. BBSt., no. 36 v 10–11); one half of the hide (kussihtu) (17, 40, 66; cf. BBSt., no. 36 v 10); one half of the rumen (uzukarsu), the intestines (uzuqerbu[†AG4]), the coils of the colon (tÿranu[†AG 4.NIGIN]), the “blood intestines” (uzuirru dami[†AG4.MÚD]), and the lungs (uzuhas¿[{AR]) (19, 42, 68; cf. BBSt., no. 36 v 12–13). Presumably, the cuts of meat in our text represent daily distributions as they do in OECT 1, pls. 20–21. Note that there, as in our text, half of the king’s share is occasionaly given as a gift to a

96

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

member of the temple personnel (i.e., to an asipu [6, 17]; in three cases Nabû-apla-iddina takes half a cut of meat, while the erib bÿtis take the other half [19, 42, 68]). Remarkably, in OECT 1, pls. 20– 21, which apparently lists all of the Eanna temple personnel, the o¯ce of the sangû is not cited (aside from É.MA† gisGIGIR [10, 34], É.MA† sa dUsuramassu [59], and É.MA† dAnunÿtu [60]); rather, the head of the temple administration is known by the title sesgallu. v 10: A rare instance of masku(KU†) with the UZU determinative; when considered as a cut of meat, the hide or skin is usually referred to as sihtu (for sihtu among the cuts of meat distributed in Eanna during the reign of Nabû-apla-iddina, see McEwan, Iraq 45 [1983] 187–98). uzuÚR, as a cut of meat, is probably to be read pemu rather than s¿nu, see R. Labat, Review of W. von Soden, AHw. (fascicle 9 [1969]), BiOr 30 (1973) 58. v 11: uzuarkatu(EGIR) ‘back,’ uzuseråanu(SA.ME†) ‘sinews, tendons’; the former is included in the Eanna meat distribution text. McEwan (Iraq 45 [1983] 196) suggests that uzuarkatu(EGIR) ‘back’ may be synonymous with sasallu ‘back(?)’ (see CAD †/2 sub sasallu mng. 2). v 12: uzukarsu ‘rumen, stomach’ is also included in the Eanna meat distribution text (McEwan, Iraq 45 [1983] 187–98). v 13: uzuqerbu ‘intestines,’ a fairly rare cut of meat, is also listed in the Eanna meat distribution text (McEwan, Iraq 45 [1983] 187–98; note also Dream-book, 323 K. 2018A: x+11f.). v 14: For kursinnu ‘fetlock’ as a cut of meat, see CAD K sub kursinnu mng. b–4u; AHw. sub kursinnu(m) mng. 2b; fetlocks are frequently included in prebends (McEwan, Iraq 45 [1983] 198 n. 48 with references). v 15: dugÚTUL A.ME† UZU for diqar mê sÿri. For mê sÿri ‘meat broth’ see CAD M/2 sub mû A mng. 2a–2ubu; CAD †/3 sub sÿru A mng. 3–2uc. v 16: ME is inscribed for ME† here and in v 27 presumably owing to a lack of space. v 18: While the phrase kî pî anni(m-ma) most often occurs with a following enumeration, according to the evidence quoted in AHw. sub pû I mng. 11c, and CAD P sub pû A mng. 8c–1u (forthcomOne Line Short

ing), the internal structure of the list suggests, as also argued by Hurowitz (in Context of Scripture, vol. 2, 367 n. 49), that the phrase here refers to what is decreed in the preceding clause. v 19–20: gis†UB.BA.ME† = isqatu/isqetu, translated here as “prebendary shares” i.e., the income of various foodstuˆs in return for the performance of services connected with the Ebabbar. For an overview of the NB prebendaries of Ebabbar, see Bongenaar, Ebabbar Temple, particularly 140–295. The erib-bÿti ‘temple enterer’ prebend was, in the NB period proper, the most prominent among the Ebabbar prebends; furthermore, ownership of an erib bÿti prebend was a prerequisite to holding the o¯ce of sangû (for an overview of the role and function of the erib bÿti in the Ebabbar, see Bongenaar, Ebabbar Temple, 157–59 with references). Note that the ˜rst mention in our text of the three o¯ces re˘ects their descending hierarchical ordering within the temple, speci˜cally, sangû (v 8), erib bÿti (v 20), and tabih¿tu (v 25). See also the kudurru of Nabû-apla-iddina’s son and successor, Marduk-zakir-sumi, where three eribbÿtis of Eanna receive identical commodities, with the exception of the various cuts of meat, i.e., NINDA.{I.A KA†.SAG NINDA.Ì.DÉ.A KU6.{I.A ú SAR.ME† kÿ KA 3 lúKU4-É “various breads, ˜rstdraft beer, mirsu-confection, various ˜sh, (and) garden produce according to (those shares) of three erib bÿtis” (RA 16 [1919] 125 i 25–27). v 25–27: Slanski understands lúGÍR.LÁ-ú-tu as nas patr¿tu with the comment, “[it] should be something like an abstract noun from ‘butcher’, apparently referring to the various cuts of meat detailed above in v 10–15” (The Babylonian Entitlement narûs, 210 ad v 25). Note also the CAD ’s understanding of this passage, tabih¿tu u unât libbi GIM pÿ 2 LÚ.TU.É.ME “cooked and served in (appropriate) containers corresponding to (the needs of) two erib bÿti ’s” (CAD E sub erib bÿti mng. c). It is clear, however, that lúGÍR.LÁ-ú-tu is a reference to the butcher’s prebend, i.e., tabih¿tu, attested in the NB Ebabbar archive, as well as the Eanna archive from Uruk, particularly during the Hellenistic period (Bongenaar, Ebabbar Temple, 294–95; G. J. P. McEwan, Priest and

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED

Temple in Hellenistic Babylonia, FAOS 4 [Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1981], 100–101). For tabih¿tu and erib bÿt¿tu in the same context, see BRM 2, 19: 55; 29: 2; TCL 13, 242: 3; Peiser Verträge, 113: 1, 119: 3. The close relationship between the temple-enterer’s and butcher’s prebends continued through the Hellenistic period, see McEwan, Priest and Temple, 76, 100. For the profession, lúGÍR.LÁ (tabihu), see J. A. Brinkman, “Ur: 721–605 B.C.,” OrNS 34 (1965) 249; Postgate Palace Archive, 91; Lambert BWL, 160: 9. For GIM pi-i 2 lúKU 4-É.ME !(LÁ) (v 27), note the similar phraseology (and identical commodities) in the kudurru of Marduk-zakir-sumi (RA 16 [1919] 125 i 27). v 26: For unât libbi ‘internal organs,’ see AHw. sub un¿tu mng. 10. In the NA ritual text ND 1120, the internal organs, un¿t libbi, are assigned to the cook (G. van Driel, The Cult of Assur [Assen: van Gorcum, 1969], 202: 14u); in †umma Izbu commentary Y, un¿t(u) libbi is equated with the liver, gabÿdu : un¿tu libbi (Leichty Izbu, 232: 230b). Cf. [BE izbu] unât †AG4-sú NU GÁL.ME† UN NUN [. . .] “If an anomaly’s ‘belly’ has no contents—the people of the prince [. . .]” (Leichty, Izbu, 167: 15u); DI† un¿t †AG4 (in broken context, Dream-book, 318: y + 17f.); . . . 1 kursinni u un¿t libbÿsu “. . . one fetlock and the internal organs” (MDP 57, 246: 13u–14u). v 38: See comm. to v 25–27. v 42: The ˜rst sign, GADA, may be a scribal mistake. Possibly the engraver etched the GADA sign before realizing that the required determinative was TÚG; otherwise the line may be interpreted as “linen for a ‘fearsome’ (pulhu-)garment.” Given that this is the only attestation of a túg pulhu, to my knowledge, this issue cannot be settled conclusively. v 43: A qarbÿtu-garment is otherwise unknown among the NB lubustu-oˆerings; moreover, this text may represent the only known attestation of this particular item of clothing (note also v 55; vi 1, 4; and túgqarbÿtu rabÿtu [v 49]); see AHw. and CAD Q sub qarbÿtu. The writing of this garment is probably a play on the logographic value of É, i.e., bÿtu; otherwise, taken as a syllabogram, bit, it

97

represents the only omission of a ˜nal vowel in this text. For the writing of CVC-CVC for cvccvcv, i.e., omission of ˜nal vowel after CVC signs, in the Bel-ibni correspondence (early NB), see de Vaan, “Ich bin eine Schwertklinge des Königs,” 105; note also, Hyatt, Final Vowels, 10–12. v 44: A seriåtu-garment (also seråÿtu, see AHw. sub seriåtu), is likewise unknown among the regular garments oˆered in the NB lubustu-ceremony. However, in the so-called Marduk Ordeal text a seriåtu-garment is worn by Marduk (ZA 51 [1955] 136: 32; JAOS 103 [1983] 133: 32). v 45–46: The hullanu-wrap and nebehu-sash are standard among the garments oˆered during the NB lubustu-ceremonies; see Giovinazzo, Annali di Napoli 41 (1981) 527–59; Matsushima in O¯cial Cult and Popular Religon, 209–19; Matsushima, ASJ 16 (1994) 177–200; Matsushima, ASJ 17 (1995) 233–49; E. Salonen, Neubabylonische Urkunden verschiedenen Inhalts, vol. 3 (= NUVI 3), Annales Academiæ Scientiarum Fennicæ Serie B 200 (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1980); Bongenaar, Ebabbar Temple, 305–7. See also the text edition of BM 91002 below. v 47–48: tabarru ‘red wool,’ takiltu ‘blue-purple wool’; the latter is often written with the logogram for lapis lazuli, i.e., (síg)ZA.(GÌN.)KUR.RA, and thus was probably manufactured with the blue dye uqnâtu (A. L. Oppenheim, “Essay on Overland Trade in the First Millennium B.C.,” JCS 21 [1967] 244 n. 41; W. H. van Soldt, “Fabrics and Dyes at Ugarit,” UF 22 [1990] 339–40; Bongenaar, Ebabbar Temple, 309; note, however, the dissenting opinion of B. Landsberger, “Über Farben im SumerischAkkadischen,” JCS 21 [1967] 163 concerning the semantic relationship between the logogram and the color). tabarru is synomous with nabasu ‘reddyed wool’ as both may be written with the logogram síg{É.ME.DA; note: [síghé.me.d]a = na-ba-su, ta-LU-ri (error for tabarri, followed by uqnâtu and takiltu) (Hh. XIX 78–78a); [síghé.me.da] = na-ba-su = dar-[x], ta-bar-[ru] (Hg. C II 3f.). Both tabarruand takiltu-wool were regularly oˆered during the NB lubustu-ceremonies (for further references, see those cited in comm. to v 45–46). For the dyes used in preparing the garments of the gods of the

98

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

Ebabbar during the NB period, see Bongenaar, Ebabbar Temple, 309. For the haplographic writing ZA.KUR.RA for takiltu, see comm. to BM 91002: 9 below. vi 11–13: râmu governs a double accusative as shown by the absence of ana in vi 11 (ARAD-su for arassu [acc.]). This is standard usage for the verb râmu in kudurrus; see BBSt., no. 1 i 8 (Kadasman-Enlil); BBSt., no. 28 rev. 17 (Nabû-apla-iddina); Sumer 23 (1967) 52: 13 (Merodach-baladan I); RA 16 (1919) 128 ii 15 (Marduk-zakir-sumi). vi 14: For the idiom ana baqrÿ la rasê, see AHw. sub baqr¿ mng. 2; also BBSt., no. 9 ii 34. vi 17: The demonstrative, suatu, here precludes an anaphoric usage given that a tuppu is not previously mentioned or alluded to in the text. Rather, we encounter a recognitional usage that is typologically common with far deictics. Recognitional demonstratives mark information that is newly introduced to the discourse, but which is well-known to both the speaker and addressee from other contexts, i.e., “discourse new and hearer old,” to use H. Diessel’s felicitous phrase (Demonstratives: Form, Function, and Grammaticalization, Typological Studies in Language 42 [Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999], 105–9). As a recognitional demonstrative, suatu refers, presumably, to the original clay tablet upon which the o¯cial seal was placed (see comm. to vi 30). vi 19: The profession is to be read lúKIR4.DAB, and not lúka-lu as given by King (BBSt., 126; followed by Slanski, The Babylonian Entitlement narûs, 203, and Hurowitz, in Context of Scripture, vol. 2, 368). J. A. Brinkman has informed me (personal communication) that this is the latest known attestation in which a Kassite tribesman of the {abban tribe/clan ˜gures prominently in the o¯cialdom of Babylonia. lúKIR4.DAB is traditionally read kartappu; however, S. Cole, based on the equation lú-kir4-dab = sak-ru-ma-si in a bilingual list (Cole Nippur, 250: 9, probably 8th century; see also 123: 2), raises the yet-to-be-proven possibility that the reading sakrumas is appropriate in Kassite and post-Kassite attestations of this logographically written title (Cole Nippur, 250). vi 20: mTUK-si-ªDINGIRº is rendered as Ittabsiilu by King (BBSt., 126; followed by Hurowitz, in

Context of Scripture, vol. 2, 368), and as †ubsi-Ilu by Slanski (The Babylonian Entitlement narûs, 208), both of which are unattested with this spelling as far as I am aware (cf. Ibassi-ilum, Stamm Namengebung, 20f., 135, and Basi-ilum, 135). Additionally, the TUK sign, rather than GÁL, suggests rasû, or perhaps isû. For Isu-ilam (OAKK), see Stamm Namengebung, 129; for Rasi-ili (NB/ LB/NA), see AHw. sub ilu(m) mng. 3g as well as Stamm Namengebung, 252 and Tallqvist APN, 186; Tallqvist NBN, 174; Stamm Namengebung, 252. Moreover, note Borger’s comment, “Ituku-si-dingir = Rasisi-ilu . . . Unsicher, ob tuku in N.P. auch basû † gelesen werden kann” (Borger Zeichenliste, no. 574); cf. Ekur-suma-usarsi (TUK-si) in i 21, 30; ii 8, 15; iii 28; iv 51. vi 23: The reading and meaning of the PN are uncertain. The name also occurs in BBSt., no. 28 rev. 22–23 (Nabû-apla-iddina) and A 33600 = 4 NT 3 12’. The reading in King, mTú-ba-lat-Istar (BBSt., 126; followed by Slanski, The Babylonian Entitlement narûs, 203, and Hurowitz, in Context of Scripture, vol. 2, 368), cannot stand, as the required is8/es18 sign for the ligature is not present (nor is the DINGIR sign which Slanski includes in her transliteration). Also note that durative forms are rarely attested in PNs (see Stamm Namengebung, 95–96). In BBSt., no. 28 (p. 105) the PN is read mTam-ma-sad-dar (see Brinkman, ZA 78 [1988] 87–88 n. 37 for corrections to BBSt.; Brinkman PKB, 207 and n. 1281). As noted by Brinkman, the DAR sign is rare in early NB and is used mainly to express this PN (note, however, the PNs mIb-ni-Is8-ªtárº [RA 16 (1919) 126 iii 7] and mKan-dar-sam-si [VAS 1, 35: 29], both ninth century). The ˜rst element of the PN is, perhaps, tambâ, 3.f.sg. pret. of nabû with 1.sg. dative, i.e., ‘she named me’ (cf. fTam-bi-Na-na, fTam-Da-du [Clay PN, 136]; see also Stamm Namengebung, 106–7); of course masculine names may be construed with a 2.f.sg. verb, e.g., mTulid-d†amsÿ. For nabû construed with the dative, note, for example, imbÿsum-ma Apsû ‘Ea named it Apsû’ (En. el. I 76). The second element of the PN, sad-dar, is obscure, see CAD †/1 sub sadaru; however, note the equation d†ad-da-ri = dNinurta (CT 25, 12 iii 10). J. A. Brinkman informs me (personal com-

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED munication) that sakin temi is not the title of a provincial governor until the time of Nabû-aplaiddina’s son, Marduk-zakir-sumi I; the governor of Isin is still designated as sakin GN (or possibly sakin mat GN) in this reign as demonstrated by BBSt., no. 28 rev. 20 and BBSt. no. 29 ii 9. vi 26: According to Brinkman PKB, 304 n. 2004, bel pÿhati is the title of a provincial governor in Assyria, but not in Babylonia, at this time; more recently, however, Brinkman makes the tentative suggestion (personal communication) that bel pÿhati may in fact denote a Babylonian provincial governor in this period as well. vi 28: ªNAº omitted in 5R, pls. 60–61. vi 30: For na4KI†IB LUGAL sá sip-re-e-ti, see CS, 220 and pl. 36k—an octagonal prism, with the symbols of Marduk and Nabû standing beside a pair of antithetically entwined goats; the inscription reads na4KI†IB LUGAL sip-re-e-ti sá LUGAL. sipretu is encountered in a variety of idioms: kunuk sipreti sa sarri, kunuk sarri sa sipreti, gabarê kunuk sarri sa sipreti, and tuppi sipretu, all designating, according to Brinkman and Dalley, “either the king’s o¯cial seal or the original (or copy) of a tablet sealed by the king’s o¯cial seal” (ZA 78 [1988] 92 n. 70). Brinkman translates “sealed o¯cial document,” and comments, “Despite the restricted contexts in which sipretu occurs, it seems likely that it refers to o¯cial or administrative acts (as a plural of sipirtu, ‘command’ or ‘order’). CAD † sees in sipretu an institution or repository and translated it as ‘chancery’ or ‘o¯cial archive’; but this is probably overspeci˜c. Kienast translates it as ‘Anweisung’ or ‘Zuweisung,’ which may be appropriate if understood in context as referring to an o¯cial act . . .” (Brinkman and Dalley, ZA 78 [1988] 92 n. 70). The fact that the stone tablet represents a copy (GABA.RI) and that the original was “sealed” (see comm. vi 17), among other evidence from kudurrus, suggests that the original entitlement was a clay tablet upon which an impression of the royal seal was placed (see J. A. Brinkman, “Remarks on Two Kudurrus from the Second Dynasty of Isin,” RA 61 [1967] 70–74; Brinkman, RLA 6 [1980–83] 267–74; B. Kienast, “NA4 KI†IB LUGAL sa sipreti,” in Language, Literature, and History: Philological and Histori-

99

cal Studies Presented to Erica Reiner, AOS 67, ed. F. Rochberg-Halton [New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1987], 167–74). The phrase is commonly encountered in kudurrus (see CAD †/3 sub sipretu; Slanski, The Babylonian Entitlement narûs, 121–22, 216). vi 43: The lack of a previously mentioned narû excludes the possibility that suatu serves as an anaphoric pronoun in this context (cf. Slanski, The Babylonian Entitlement narûs, 106–7); note the previous occurrences of suatu in this text which do, in fact, represent genuine examples of anaphora, e.g., SÁ.DUG4 suatu (i 26; cf. i 20); (usurti) salmi suatu (iii 30, iv 5, 8, 12 [cf. iii 19]); LÚ suatu (vi 45; cf. vi 32). In the case of vi 43, however, suatu, is simply the far demonstrative, ‘that,’ with extended semantic range, used in lieu of the expected near deictic, annû ‘this’; note that in parallel contexts from other kudurrus, annû is used, e.g., narâ annâ (BBSt., no. 4 iv 5; BBSt., no. 8 Add. 6 [p. 48]; cf. kudurri annî [BE 1/2, 149 iii 2; BBSt., no. 4 title line 2]; see also CAD A/2 sub annû mng. k). Cross-linguistically, the relationship between demonstratives of varying degrees of remoteness is remarkably unstable. Often the functionally unmarked deictic—almost invariably a non-proximal member—extends its functional range to absorb that of a marked, proximal member. For fuller discussion of the close, often historical, relationships between distal and proximal deictics with references, see J. H. Greenberg, “Some Iconic Relationships among Place, Time, and Discourse Deixis,” in Iconicity in Syntax: Proceedings of a Symposium on Iconicity in Syntax, Stanford, June 24–26, 1983. ed. John Haiman (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1985), 271–87; and Woods, “The Deictic Foundations of the Sumerian Language,” particularly 219–23. vi 52: †À.GAR-e, with phonetic complement, is for the loanward sagarû ‘hunger,’ rather than the more common and synonomous bub¿tu (see CAD †/1 sub sagarû). vi 54–55: For similar imprecations, note: salamtasu qebira ayy-usarÿsu “May (Gula) deprive his corpse of a burier” (BBSt., no. 9 ii 24–25, Nabûmukÿn-apli); salamtasu ina erseti ayy-iqqebir “his body shall not be buried in the ground” (MDP 6,

100

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

38: 21, Merodach-baladan I); suma kisitti u qebir NU TUK “(whoever takes away the tablet) will have no son, descendant, or anyone to bury him”

(AOAT 2, 91: 7 [LB colophon]). In line 55 ªKIº miscopied as †À in 5R, pls. 60–61.

BM 91002 (BBSt., no. 36) Previous Editions: Jastrow, AJSL 15 (1899) 71–86 (photograph: p. 71 = pl. 1; copy: p. 73 = pl. 2); Langdon, VAB 4, 70–71 (=Nabopolassar Nr. 5); BBSt., 127 (photographs of BM 91002 and 91004: pls. 100– 102); Matsushima, in O¯cial Cult and Popular Religion, 213 n. 15. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

17.

UTU EN GAL-ú a-sib É.ªBABBAR.RºA EN UD.KIB.NUNki †amas, the great lord, the one who dwells in the Ebabbar, lord of Sippar. túg NÍG.MU4 dUTU EN GAL-ú EN UD.KIB.NUNki Garments (for) †amas, the great lord, lord of Sippar: iti BÁR UD.7.KÁM 2 gadasal-hu 4 túgsib-ti for the seventh day of Nisannu: two linen salhu-garments, four sibtu-garments ki-tin-nu 40 MA.NA KI.LÁ-sú-nu 1–en gadahu-la-nu made of kitinnû-linen, their weight 40 minas, one linen hullanu-wrap, 1–en me-ze-hu GADA 7 túgNÍG.ÍB.LÁ one linen mezehu-scarf, seven husannu-sashes 1 MA.NA 10 GÍN KI.LÁ 1–en túgÍB.LÁ iz-hi weighing one mina and ten shekels, one tied nebehu-sash, 1–en túgMURUB4.ÍB.LÁ ta-bar-ra 1–en TÚG.UD.A 20 MA.NA KI.LÁ one red-wool girdle, one garment weighing 20 minas, 1–en TÚG.UD.A zi-qu 1–en me-ze-hu GADA one garment with crenellated hem, one linen mezehu-scarf, 1–en ku-lu-lu ﬁsígﬂZAﬁ.GÌNﬂ.KUR.RA ﬁ1–enﬂ ku-lu-lu sá one blue-purple (wool) kul¿lu-turban, (one) kul¿lu-turban that KUG.SIG17 iz-hi ina UGU-sú 1–en TÚG.UD.A ﬁsígﬂZAﬁ.GÌNﬂ.KUR.RA has gold fastened on it, one blue-purple (wool) garment iz-hi KUG.SIG17 KÁ TÚG.UD.A itiGUD UD.10.KÁM ki-ma itiBÁR KI.MIN fastened (with) gold. Itemization of the wardrobe for the tenth day of Aiaru: the same as that for (the seventh day of) Nisannu. iti KIN UD.3.KÁM 2 gadasal-hu 3 túgsib-ti (For) the third day of Ul¿lu: two linen salhu-garments, three sibtu-garments, 1–en gadahu-la-nu 1–en me-ze-hu GADA one linen hullanu-wrap, 1 linen mezehu-scarf, 6 túgNÍG.ÍB.LÁ 1–en túgMURUB4.ÍB.LÁ 1–en TÚG.UD.A six husannu-sashes, one girdle, one garment, 1–en mut-ta-tu4 sá ta-bar-ri one muttatu-headband(?) of red (and) ﬁsígﬂ ZAﬁ.GÌNﬂ.KUR.RA bu-su ti-mi-tu4 itiDU6 UD.7.KÁM KI.MIN blue-purple wool (twined with) byssos threads. (Wardrobe for) the seventh day of Tasrÿtu: the same (as that for the third day of Ul¿lu). iti APIN UD.15.KÁM ki-ma itiBÁR iti†E UD.15.KÁM (Wardrobe for) the ˜fteenth day of Arahsamnu: the same as that for (the seventh day of) Nisannu. (Wardrobe for) the ˜fteenth of Addaru: d

One Line Long

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED

101

18. ki-ma itiKIN gab-ri a-su-ú-mi-it sá dUTU EN ªSip-parkiº the same as that for (the third day of) Ul¿lu. Impression of the bas-relief of †amas, lord of Sippar, 19. sá mdNÀ-IBILA-MU LUGAL TIN.TIRki (commissioned) by Nabû-apla-iddina, king of Babylon.

General Commentary BM 91002 and BM 91004 (clay coˆer bearing the inscription: sal-lam dUTU EN UD.KIB.NUNki a-sib-bi É.BABBAR.RA, inscribed ˜ve times [see BBSt., 120 n. 1]) display several orthographic characteristics that are in contrast to the writing of BM 91000 (SGT) and possibly indicate a later date for these artifacts. Observe the following: over 30% of all ˜nal vowels depart from historically justi˜ed case endings, according to a pattern in which, after a double consonant or two-consonant cluster, the ˜nal vowel is attracted to the quality of the vowel of the preceding syllable (e.g., tabarra nom. [7]; sibti nom. [3, 12]; izhi nom. [6, 10, 11]; note that in BM 91000, case endings are consistently assigned according to the MB paradigm to an accuracy of over 91%); -V1C1 for -C1V1 in 18 (i.e., a-su-ú-mi-it for a-su-ú-mi-ti; spellings of this type do not occur in BM 91000); the spelling of the RN in 19 (i.e., mdNÀ-IBILA-MU) is not attested in contemporaneous Nabû-apla-iddina texts, but is typical of later periods; BM 91004 displays two unorthographic bound forms, sal-lam for salam and a-sib-bi for expected asib, that are in marked contrast to the ˜fty ˘awlessly expressed bound forms of BM 91000 (e.g., sa-lam [Caption I 1; iv 20], a-sib [Caption I 2; i 2]; see general comm. to BM 91000 above); ˜nally, the garment oˆerings of BM 91004 are nearly identical to those oˆered in the Chaldean and Persian periods, while several garments of BM 91000 are unknown to the NB lubustu-ceremony (for a full discussion of these points, which collectively may indicate a later date for BM 91004, see above, A Post-Nabûapla-iddina Date for the Clay Molds and Coˆer). Notes 3: Matsushima reads síksib-ti; however, sibtu is always written with the TÚG determinative (see CAD S sub sibtu A). salhu and sibtu garments

are both frequently attested in NB wardrobes of †amas, Aya, and Bunene (see CAD S sub sibtu A mng. 3; CAD †/1 sub salhu mng. b; see also refs. cited in comm. to BM 91000 v 45–46 above). sibtugarments are also well attested in the NB wardrobes of the Eanna deities, for which it is known that white thread, mihsu pesû, was used in their manufacture (e.g., TCL 12, 107: 2; YOS 7, 183 passim); BIN 2, 128: 2 refers to three minas of alum (na4gabû) for whitening a large sibtu-garment (i.e., túgMÁ†.GAL) for Nanaya. 4: The ˜rst sign is KI, against Jastrow, King, Langdon, and Matsushima, who read KU (kutinnu is a rarely attested OA textile, see CAD K sub kutinnu; cf. sub kitinnû, a well-attested NB textile). For sibtu-garments made of kitinnû-linen, note also MÁ†.ME sa kitinnê (Oberhuber Florenz, 165: 24). hullanu is written hu-la-nu, not hul-la-nu as transliterated by Matsushima; hullanu-wraps are frequently oˆered in the NB lubustu-ceremony (see refs. cited in comm. to BM 91000 v 45–46 above). 5: At Uruk, fabric of white thread, TÚG mihsi pesû, was used in the manufacture of a mêzehuscarf for the Lady-of-Uruk (YOS 7, 183: 3). For the equation túgNÍG.ÍB.LÁ = hu-[sa-an-nu], see Hh. XIX 248. According to the CAD, husannu-sashes, made of linen or wool, were worn by goddesses (particularly of Sippar and Uruk), as well as by †amas; they were usually oˆered in allotments of six to ten (CAD { sub husannu). At Uruk, at least some the mezehu-scarves oˆered to Anunÿtu were made of blue-purple wool, (síg)ZA.GÌN.KUR.RA, e.g., Nbn. 794: 4. 6: túgÍB.LÁ = ni-[bi-hu] (Hh. XIX 247); túgÍB.[LÁ] = ni-bi-ªhuº (Practical Vocabularly Assur 243 [= AfO 18 (1957–58) 330: 243); túgÍB.LÁ [. . .] = ni-bi-h[u . . .] (OECT 6, pl. 15: 12f.); see CAD N/2 sub nebehu lex. for further references. According to CT 22, 13: 8f., the nebehu of †amas was made with bluepurple wool: dullu sa nebehu sa †amas . . . illâ

102

CHRISTOPHER E. WOODS

takiltu batil ‘the work on the nebehu of †amas is stopped for lack of takiltu-wool’ (also BM 82-714, 950 rev. 20); BM 82-7-14, 762: 3 refers to inzahuretu (red dye) and na4gab¿ (alum) for the nebehu of †amas (cited in CAD N/2 sub nebehu mng. 1e). The diˆerence between nebehu- and husannu-sashes remains obscure; that they both occur in our text as well as ZA 4 (1889) 137 no. 4 (among the garments of †amas and Aya) shows that the two garments are indeed to be distinguished (noted in CAD N/2 sub nebehu). iz-hi (also in 10, 11) has previously been understood as AM, without translation, in previous editions. iz-hi is taken here for ezhi, the verbal adj. of ezehu (esehu) ‘to tie on’ (CAD E sub ezehu). For ezhu (eshu) ‘tied around (the waist)’, note it-lu-pu-ti = mu-su-ú ez-hu-ti “tied musû-garments” (CT 18, 13 iii 35 [synonym list]). nebehu ezhu, perhaps means ‘tied sash’ or ‘sash used as a belt’; cf. CAD, I–J sub izhu, with the de˜nition ‘belt, string,’ however, the examples quoted suggest a meaning ‘string’ rather than ‘belt.’ 7: The underlying Akkadian term for the logogram túgMURUB4.ÍB.LÁ is unknown; however, Hh. XIX 248a recension G (BM 4091 + 40724) includes túg MURUB4.[ ] immediately following túgÍB.LÁ = ni-[bi-hu] (247) and túgNÍG.ÍB.LÁ = hu-[sa-an-nu] (248). Clearly túgMURUB4.ÍB.LÁ is a girdle, sash or belt closely related to nebehu and husannu. Salonen translates ‘Hüftgürtel’ (NUVI 3, 140; see comm. to BM 91000 v 45–46 above for reference); for further attestations, note Nbn. 410 (= NUVI 3, 40): 5, 6 for †amas and Bunene; Cyr. 7 (106): 5, 8, 16 for †amas, Bunene, and Adad; Cyr. 232 (120): 21 for Bunene; VAS 6, 26 (242): 10, 13 (broken); CT 44, 73 (249): 19 for †amas and Bunene. TÚG.UD.A is a variant spelling for TÚG.{I.A (note also the spelling TÚG.UD.{I.A, e.g., Camb. 66: 4), i.e., lubaru. The term may be used as a generic word for garment, as is the case in this line as well as 10 and 14; it may also refer to a divine wardrobe in general (i.e., 11), or serve as a determinative before speci˜c articles of clothing (i.e., 8; similarly, note TÚG.UD.A me-tu TÚG.UD.A ku-lulu sígZAﬁ.GÌNﬂ.KUR.RA sá dUTU “metu-garments and blue-purple kul¿lu-turbans of blue-purple wool for †amas” [CT 4, 38a 1–2]); see CAD L sub

lubaru mng. 1h–2uau, bu. The interchange of UD with {I is well attested in the writing for re˜ned or dry bitumen, i.e., ESIR.{I.A, ESIR.UD.A, as well as ESIR.È.A, see A. Draˆkorn Kilmer, “Two New Lists of Key Numbers for Mathematical Operations,” OrNS 29 (1960) 291 n. 3; CAD I–J sub. ittû A. Similarly, in the texts collected in NUVI 3, TÚG.{I.A alternates with TÚG.UD.A (and TÚG. UD.{I.A). For tabarru-wool see comm. to BM 91000 v 47–48. 8: The last sign is GADA, not KI.LAL, as copied by Jastrow, nor GI† as transliterated by Langdon and King. TÚG.UD.A zi-qu is taken as a garment with crenellated hem. ziqqu has the primary meaning of ‘crest, edge, battlement,’ and, with transferred meaning, is used to refer to garments (or jewelry) with a crenellated hem or design, see CAD Z sub ziqqu A mng. 2. For the use of crenellated patterns on garments, and their apotropaic functions, see A. L. Oppenheim, “Golden Garments of the Gods,” JNES 8 (1949) 186, 190. For additional attestations of ziqqu in NB, note: 2 lu-ba-ri ziq-qu (Nbn. 284 [= NUVI 3, 38]: 26); TÚG.{I.A ziq-qu (VAS 6, 15 [237]: 2). TÚG.{I.A ziqqu in our text, and in NB in general, is equivalent to TÚG ziqqu of MB (see the references provided in CAD Z sub ziqqu A mng. 2b); for TÚG.{I.A, i.e., lubaru, in this line, see comm. to 7. 9: The last sign is †Á, not †A, as transliterated by Matsushima; †Á is indicated as an erasure in Jastrow’s copy. takiltu is consistently written with the haplography ZA.KUR.RA for (síg)ZA.GÌN. KUR.RA in this text (also 10, 16); for other such writtings, note: sígZAﬁ.GÌNﬂ.KUR.RA (Nbn. 726 [= NUVI 3, 67]: 21; VAS 6, 28 [243]: 1, Nebuchadnezzar; CT 4, 38a [248]: 2, 15, 18, 24, Nebuchadnezzar); cf. sígZA.GÌNﬁ.KUR.RAﬂ (GCCI 2, 381 [218]: 1, Darius); without the SÍG determinative: ZA.GÌN.KUR.RA (Nbn. 349 [42]: 1; Nbn. 637 [57]: 4; Camb. 137 [138]: 1). kul¿lu-turbans for †amas (among other gods) are frequently made with purple wool, e.g., Camb. 382: 2; CT 4, 38a 2; Cyr. 202: 7. For takiltu-wool, see also comm. to BM 91000 v 47–48. 10: TÚG.UD.A ZA.KUR.RA for túgZA.GÌN.KUR. RA ‘blue-purple garment or wool’ see Camb. 267

THE SUN-GOD TABLET OF NABÛ-APLA-IDDINA REVISITED

(= NUVI 3, 153): 2; CT 44, 73 (249): 23–25, designating takiltu-wool. 11: KÁ is clearly written; however, babu, as designating a garment type, part of a garment (i.e., the opening), or garment design, is unattested as far as I am aware; cf. the previous translations: “one lubaru-garment made of blue-purple wool which has golden ornaments in the form of a gate(??)” (Matsushima, in O¯cial Cult and Popular Religon, 213 n. 15); “one bright colored . . . -garment embroidered(?) with gold of the gate” (BBSt., 127); “ein weißes(?) Gewand, hellblaue Wolle, geschmolzenes Gold für das weiße(?) Gewand” (Langdon, VAB 4, 71, with the reading SIMUG rather than KÁ); “one white, bright-colored garment, AM gold of the gate” ( Jastrow, AJSL 15 [1899] 75). For babu with the meaning ‘item, itemization,’ particularly in NB accounts and lists of commoditites, see CAD B sub babu A mng. 6a; AHw. I sub babu mng. 8; Oppenheim, JNES 8 (1949) 176. The last sign of the line is MIN, for the ligature KI+MIN, not LAL, as copied by Jastrow and understood by Langdon. For TÚG.{I.A, i.e., lubaru, in this line, see comm. to 7. 13: Jastrow notes that there may be an erasure between the GADA (copied as TÚG) and {U signs—perhaps another GADA or TÚG sign; the photograph in BBSt., pl. 101 is inconclusive. hullanu is written hu-la-nu, not hul-la-nu as transliterated by Matsushima. 15: For muttatu ‘headband(?)’, frequently made with blue-purple (takiltu) or red (tabarru, inzahretu) wool or dye, see CAD M/2 sub muttatu A mng. 3. 16: For this line see CAD M/2 sub muttatu A mng. 3; for b¿su ‘byssus,’ see CAD B sub b¿su D; Jastrow, AJSL 15 (1899) 79–80. The last sign of the line is MIN, for the ligature KI+MIN, not LAL, as given by Jastrow and Langdon. 18–19: For discussion and interpretation of lines 18–19, see above, The SGT Assemblage. The read-

103

ing of the RN, and hence the attribution of the mold, has traditionally been mdNÀ-IBILA-†E†, i.e., Nabopolassar (see Pinches, PSBA 3 [1881] 110; Jastrow, AJSL 15 (1899) 65–86; BBSt., no. 36 (p. 127); Langdon VAB 4, 70–71; Berger, AOAT 4/1, 144; and Matsushima, in O¯cial Cult and Popular Religon, 213 n. 15). Joannès, however, reads the last sign of the RN as MU, not †E†, based on the photographs provided by King in BBSt., pl. 101 and thus reads the RN as Nabû-apla-iddina rather than as Nabopolassar (NABU 1991/113). Despite Bongenaar’s claim that the ˜nal sign of the king’s can be read as either -ª†E†º (-usur) or -ªMUº (-iddina) owing to an erasure (Ebabbar Temple, 305 n. 274), a collation of the RN by I. Finkel con˜rms Joannès’ reading (see n. 34). Further, this reading is in agreement with what is known of the writing of the PN from other sources. In the Assyrian and Babylonian texts contemporaneous with the reign of Nabû-apla-iddina, the RN is written (m)dNÀ-A-SUM-na, dNÀ-IBILA-SUM-na, or d PA-A-SUM-na, while the writing mdNÀ-IBILAMU of BM 91002 is known only from later sources as far as I am aware, i.e., OECT 1, pl. 20: 6, 19 (Chaldean or Seleucid copy); perhaps Chronicle 24 [Eclectic Chronicle] rev. 4 (Late Babylonian, partially broken), see Grayson Chronicles, 63, 182: 4. These facts again suggest a later date for the mold vis-à-vis the SGT (for a complete discussion, see above, A Post-Nabû-apla-iddina Date for the Clay Molds and Coˆer). For full evidence of the writing of the PN with references, see Brinkman PKB, 182 n. 1119. ID in line 18 is miscopied as TUM by Jastrow; note the use of a -V1C1 sign for -C1V1, a regular characteristic of late orthographies. For similar genitives written -iC1 for -C1i before the determinative pronoun sa in early NB, see Hyatt, Final Vowels, 12.

BUNCH OF GRAPES, SWARM OF LOCUSTS Jaan Puhvel University of California, Los Angeles

†A GI†SAR.G[E†TIN] 1–ass-a mahlas . . . m¿rius mekkus haskiddu, “may each single vine of this vineyard bear many grapes!” Old Hittite attestations regularly have the plene-spelling ma-a-ahla-. In the Law Code (paragraph 101) there are sanctions against the theft of a vine: takku taggaliandaza GI†SAR.GE†TIN GI†mahlan kuiski taiyazi, “if someone steals a vine from a fenced vineyard.” GE†TIN mahlas (genitive following Sumerogram) could be either grape (muris) or wine (wiyanas) of the vine, as in the heuriger product of KUB XXXIV 11 iii 16: 1 GAL GIR4 GE†TIN mahlas huelpis, “one clay goblet young grape wine” (GE†TIN GIBIL vs. GE†TIN LIBIR.RA “old wine”). In Old Hittite (KBo XXI 22 rev. 46) mahli, “to the vine,” is followed (49) by ANA GE†TIN KU7 , “to the sweet grape (or: wine)” (vs. GE†TIN EMSU, “sour grape” [or “dry wine”]). Elsewhere (KUB XXIX 1 iv 13–16) “they set a vine-plant” (GI†GE†TIN-as GI†mahlan), wishing that, “as the vine (GI†GE†TIN) shoots roots down and branches (GI†mahlus) above,” the royal couple may ˘ourish likewise. Thus, mahla- is not simply “vine” but refers to young, fruitful vines or branches suitable for planting and grafting, and hence also (unlike old, rooted stock) readily stealable. It is not a basic word for “vine” but rather “growing young vinestock,” which allows a reconstruction *mayahh(a)la- (> mahla-, with loss of -y- between like vowels), derived from mai-/miya- “grow” and similar in formation to *miyahha- “growth,” where derivates have bifurcated, miyahhuwant“grown” > “ripe, old” vs. mayant- “growing” > “adult, sturdy.”

A viticultural and oenological semantic triad normally comprises vine, grape and wine, thus plant, fruit and product. Similarly French has vigne, raisin and vin, and German diˆerentiates Rebe, Traube and Wein. Latin, however, distinguishes vÿtis “vine,” ¿va, racemus (> French raisin) “grape” and vÿnum, “wine”; in this string, ¿va is semantically ambiguous, either “vine(branch)” (Vergil, Georgica 2.60: fert uva racemos) or “grape-(bunch)” (anatomical diminutive uvula coined on Greek stafulhv). Greek stafulhv is similarly the fourth member of a set containing aßmpeloÍ “vine,” bovtruÍ “grape(bunch),” and (©)oπnoÍ “wine.” (©)oπnoÍ and bovtruÍ have their obscure etymological roots in the eastern Mediterranean, while stafulhv bears reconstructing as *stm∞ bh-ul- “˜rmly packed” (cf. a˚stemfhvÍ “˜rm,” Skt. stabh- “make ˜rm”) and may thus literally mean “bunch.” (©)oπnoÍ and Lat. vÿnum are more complex, with possible a¯nity to Lat. vÿtis and Near Eastern comparands stretching from Hitt. wiyana- to Hebr. jajin and Arab. wain. The Semitic attestations are relatively late, especially ÿnu ˜rst in Neo-Babylonian. Akkadian had rather karanu(m) for both “vine” and “wine,” more explicitly gapnu sa karani for “vine-plant” and ishunn(at)u(m) for “grape-bunch.” Sumerian gestin was vine, grape and wine alike, sometimes akkadographically supplemented in Hittite texts to ensure explicitness, thus GE†TIN GAP~NU “vine-plant,” (GI†)GE†TIN I†HUNATU “grapebunch,” (GI†)GE†TIN KAR~N “grape(s).” Groping for the Hittite underlay, mahla-, muri(yan)-, and wiyana- seem to be “vine, grape and wine,” as in KUB XLIII 23 rev. 20–22: kell-a-z 127

JCS 56 (2004)

128

JAAN PUHVEL

A basic word for “grapevine” may rather be ippi(y)a-, also e-ip-pí-ya-, often GI†ippi(y)a-, rarely Ú ippiya-, betraying wavering between tree and plant. There are such parallels as eppiyas mu-úri-is (KUB LVII 110 ii 8) and GI†ippias mu-ri-in (KBo XI 32 obv. 21) beside GE†TIN-as mu-ri-es (KUB XXXVI 89 rev. 58). CHD (1986) and HHW (2001) balk at an equation GE†TIN = ippi(y)a-, with CHD rendering muri- as “cluster of grapes or other fruit,” and HHW describing ippi(y)aas “a plant which, like the grapevine, bears fruit in grapelike bunches or clusters.” Thus the basemeaning of muri(yan)- is assumed to be “bunch” rather than “grape.” As seen above, such can indeed be the case of Greek stafulhv, and of bovtruÍ as well; a ˜rm resolution to this matter is not possible. Yet, even if GE†TIN = ippi(y)a- is not formally clinched, it is strongly reinforced by circumstantial evidence (HED 1–2: 375–77). The vegetation daimon Miyatanzipas “Genius of Growth” sat beneath the GI†ÿppia-, and it was likewise associated with the maieutic mother-goddess Hannahannas, both Asianic “dionysiac” to the core, reinforced further by the ˜gure of Mhthr Ipta (< *IpJa) of the Bacchic folk-cults of western Anatolia and the Orphic Hymns, divine nurse of Dionysus, literally “Mother Vine” (cf. the botanical expression annas GI†GE†TIN-as [HED 1–2: 55]). In any event, muri(yan)- is a collective of grapes rather than a single grape, the plural meaning “bunches of grapes,” with potential totum pro parte metonymy (a grape). The real thing could be supplemented by ornamental fakes in a “Christmas tree” setting, as in KUB XXX 19 i 5–6 + XXXIX 7 i 11–12: namma-an I†TU GI†GE†TIN GI† INBI m¿rinit SÍGiyatnas m¿rinit unuwanzi, “then they deck (the vine) with natural fruit grapes (and) with grapes (made) of thick wool.” An etymological connection with Greek murÇoÍ “countless” (M. Weiss, KZ 109 [1996] 199–214) shrinks in plausibility vis-à-vis indigenous Asianic origin (cf. toponymic Muvrina in Lydia and Crete, morinail on the Stele of Lemnos). Regardless of base-meaning or etymology, muri(yan)- and its Greek counterpart bov t ruÍ could have developed ˜gurative secondary senses

relating to “numbers” or multiplicity. Greek BovtruÍ glosses Plh∑avdaÍ (Scholia Iliad 18.486, Aratus 254), as explained by Isidore (Rer. Nat. 26.6: “Pliades sunt multae iuges stellae, quas etiam botrum appellamus a multitudine stellarum”). Gregory of Tours (De cursu stellarum 28.51) chimes in with the corrupt variant butrionem. Hitt. muri(yan)- attests to no such stellar applications, but the elaborate Hittite baking industry featured a well-documented bread product (NINDA) muriyala-, plausibly “grape-roll,” “raisinbread,” or the like, which was notably hung as ornamental or ritual decking from the horns of cattle. Gregory (loc. cit.) also cites another Latin term for the Pleiades (beside the normal Vergiliae), Massa, meaning literally (since Plautus) “heap, mass,” borrowed from Greek maÅza “dough, blob, lump” (< *magJa). This in turn yields a clue to the possible true meaning of Hitt. ma-(a-)sa- “locust swarm” (singular only, usually matching the plural BURU5.{I.A [with singular verb; cf. tuzzi- = ERÍN.ME† “army”]). In this case CHD and HEG have no compunction about a literal entomological term “locust,” with HEG tying in Lat. mando and Greek mastavzw “chew.” Unlike Sum. buru5 and Akk. erbum, masa- does not mean “a locust” (while the Mesopotamian terms can be used “collectively”, e.g., Akk. tibut erbim “attack of locusts”). Hence Hitt. masa- may rather signify “swarm (of insects, notably locusts)” and formally and etymologically match Greek maÅza; nongeminated intervocalic s (probably phonetic /z/) as the outcome of *gy and *dy is well documented (HED 1–2:412). The root seen in Greek mavssw is not otherwise attested in Hittite, but such a petrifact is hardly unique: e.g., the verbal root *med- “take measures,” has only nominal debris in Hittite (abl. midnaz, “by device,” mitesnas, “of weight”) and Armenian (mit, “thought”). Besides a root *mag- there is *makw- seen in Sanskrit mácate, “crunch,” attested also in Hittite as an isolated noun makkuya(< *makwya-), “churn,” used in combination with GA sap- “to skim milk” (KUB XXXIX 45 Vs. 10). In this manner, muri(yan)- as a bunch of grapes points circuitously to masa- as a swarming mass of locusts.

CRITICAL REVIEW Horst Klengel and Evelyn Klengel-Brandt, Spätaltbabylonische Tontafeln. Texte und Siegelabrollungen. Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, neue Folge, Heft XIII (Heft XXIX), Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 2002. Pp. 76 + 75 plates.

type of transaction, main parties, witnesses, and date, as well as bibliographic references regarding prosopography and philological issues. The corpus encompasses legal, economic, and administrative texts from both the state and private sector, and there are no letters. The documents are arranged according to a—at times not strictly followed—thematic criterion. This review has three sections. The ˜rst includes comments on certain texts and people, the second deals with dating, and the third with the list of personal names. Instead of arranging the documents according to family archives (see, e.g., Kalla 1999), I have divided them into the following institutional categories: i) nadÿtum texts, ii) documents related to the palace, iii) the elders of Kar†amas. I have further provided a classi˜cation of individuals depending on their role in the transaction: iv) buyers of real estate, v) lessors, and vi) lenders of diˆerent commodities.

Reviewed by Andrea Seri, University of Michigan This new volume of the series Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der staatlichen Museen zu Berlin (VAS 29) contains 132 late Old Babylonian tablets. The autograph copies, tablet descriptions, and lists of personal, divine, and geographical names are by Horst Klengel. The study of seal impressions is by Evelyn Klengel-Brandt, and the drawings of seals by Daniela Hintz. These tablets belong to a bigger lot that the Königliche Museen zu Berlin purchased from Selim Homsy & Co. in 1886/1887, and the Vorderasiatisches Museum has housed the collection since 1899. The introduction explains that although the tablets came from the antiquities market, they are said to have originated in Abu-Habba, ancient SipparJahrurum, which seems to be con˜rmed on prosopographic grounds. Not every Assyriologist, however, agrees on this interpretation. This is so because the proximity of Tell Abu Habba and Tell ed-Der, the mobility of people, and the lack of archaeological records prevent an unambiguous identi˜cation of the exact provenance of Sippar texts in collections such as the Vorderasiatisches Museum, the Louvre, or Yale University (e.g., Goddeeris 2002: 39). Klengel provides a detailed and convenient summary of the contents of the tablets including the

Comments on Certain Texts and People This section consists of a classi˜cation of some groups of texts concerning the activities of certain persons. Nadÿtum texts • Princess Iltani, nad ÿ tum , daughter of S î nmuballit, lends silver to †amas-ÿn-matim (n. 48, Si 4/VI/30) • Princess Iltani, nadÿtum, daughter of Abi-esuh, and great-grand-niece of the previous one (see Stol 1987), is recorded in three documents from 129

JCS 56 (2004)

130

•

•

•

•

•

•

CRITICAL REVIEW

the time of Ammi-ditana: n. 49 (Ad 22/?/26), n. 53 (Ad 25/XI/5), and n. 78 (Ad 30/XII/22). Princess Lamassani, nadÿtum, sells a property to Taribum, N¿r-†amas, and Usi-bÿtum (n. 18, Si 2/IX/W). Amat-Aja, nadÿtum, daughter of Bur(?)Niníianna, approached †amas-bani, the ugula dam-gar3 , and the judges of Sippar-Jahrurum, to raise a claim concerning a ˜eld against Warad-Sîn, the aga3 -us, son of Apil-Amurrum (n. 1, Ad 3/X/13). Amat-beltim, nadÿtum, daughter of Isar-Lÿm, together with her half brothers Lipit-Istar, son of Zimri-Erah, and Marduk-nasir, son of Marduk-muballit, raised a claim concerning grain against Gimil-Marduk, son of Etel-pîNabium (n. 2, Si 35?/IX/5). Amat-†amas, nadÿtum, daughter of IbniMarduk, a gala-mah from Babylon, will receive in the karum of Sippar the grain that her father has lent to Warad-essesim (n. 84, Sd 13/ III/22). Beltani, nadÿtum, daughter of Sîn-magir, buys a ˜eld from another nadÿtum, Nÿsi-inÿsu, daughter of †¿-pîsa (n. 16, Si 2/X/W). Lamassani, nadÿtum, daughter of {abil-ahi,

lends silver to Awÿl-Sîn, the son of Nanna-maan-sum2 (n. 55, As 5/XI/20) • †at-Aja, nadÿtum, daughter of Imgur-Sîn, rents a ˜eld to Etellum and Imgur-Sîn (n. 33, Si 3/ [ ]/[ ]) • [PN], nadÿtum, lends grain to Ilsu-nasir, s. of Rÿs-†amas (n. 81, date broken, Ad?) A text worth noticing is n. 15 (As [ ]/VIII/10), which mentions four nadÿtums as the previous owners of a ˜eld bought by Kur¿m, the son of Warad-Mamu. This sale contract is interesting because it records the property history of a ˜eld over eighty years. The ˜eld was ˜rst sold by the nadÿtum Lamassani, daughter of †amas-bani, to the nadÿtum Nÿsi-inÿsu, daughter of Rÿs-†amas, for 1 mina of silver in the year Ae 2. The ˜eld was then sold by the nadÿtum Amat-beltim and her brother Sîn-isme’anni, the children of N¿r-†amas, son of Taribum, son of Rÿs-†amas. The fact that the genealogy of the sellers goes back to their greatgrandfather Rÿs-†amas allows us assume that Amat-beltim and Sîn-isme’anni inherited the land from their nadÿtum great-aunt, Nÿsi-inÿsu, who had purchased the ˜eld eighty years earlier. The family tree can be reconstructed as follows:

Rÿs-†amas

Nÿsi-inÿsu, nadÿtum (bought the ˜eld in Ae 2)

Taribum N¿r-†amas

Amat-beltim, nadÿtum

Sîn-isme’anni (sold the ˜eld in As 17b+)

Amat-beltim and her brother Sîn-isme’anni sold the ˜eld to Eristi-Aja, the nadÿtum, daughter of Sîn-iqÿsam, in As 17b+ for 1 mina of silver. This shows that the price of the ˜eld remained the same for eighty years. Later when Kur¿m purchased the property from Eristi-Aja’s heirs, the One [Body] Line Short

full price of the ˜eld (sam2-til-la-bi-se3) was still 1 mina. Although the date is mostly broken, the name of As, as well as the month and day are preserved (As [ ]/VIII/10). The land must have been sold within a period of ˜ve years, at some point between As 17b+ and As 21, and during

CRITICAL REVIEW this time the price did not vary.1 This document seems to challenge Farber’s (1978: 29) conclusion that there was a gradual decline in the price of land in Sippar from {ammurabi onwards, possibly due to a drop in land productivity. Texts related to the palace. “Bureaus of wool and agricultural aˆairs” a) Utul-Istar, the well-known royal o¯cial whose career was studied by Yoˆee (1977: 12–52), appears in nine tablets: • In texts 50 (Ad 23/IV/20), 52 (Ad 25/IV/25), and 51 (Ad 26/VI/24), Ilsu-ibni, ugula dam-gar3 , lends silver from Utul-Istar’s jurisdiction to the children of Taribum, namely, †amas-bani, Ilÿkÿma-abija (not mentioned in n. 51), {abil-ahi, and Ipqatum. Ilsu-ibni is also the middleman in two other documents related to the palace, although Utul-Istar is not mentioned. In n. 70 (Ad 22/IV/14?) he lends wool to †amas-bani, Ilÿkÿma-abija, and Ipqatum, the children of Taribum; and in n. 86 (Ad [ ]/VI/[ ]), he lends silver to Taribum, Eterum, and Ipqu-Mamu, children of Mamu-[ ] • In texts 63 (Ad 28/XII/5), 47 (Ad 29/IX/6), and 79 (Ad 29/IX/10), Nunnatum, dam-gar3 , s. of Awÿlatum, lends silver from Utul-Istar’s jurisdiction to Ilÿ-iqÿsam, s. of Sîn-remeni (n. 63); to Ilsu-ibni, at the behest of Ibni-Adad, s. of Ilÿ-[ ] (n. 47); and to Arrabu, s. of [ ]-Marduk (n. 79). In n. 73 (Ad 28/XII/15) Nunnatum lends grain that he received from Utul-Istar to Gimillum, s. of Belijatum. • n. 75 (Ad 28/XI/9), Utul-I s tar gives grain against work obligation to Marduk-muballit, s. of Ibbi-Sîn.

1. Lines 29–31 read: sam2-til-la-bi-se3/ 1 ma-na ku3-babbar in-na-an-la2/ u3 1 gin2 ku3-babbar si-BI is-ku-un. In this context the one shekel of silver mentioned after the property’s full price seems to have been deposited as agio or earnest money. San Nicolò suggested this translation several years ago (e.g., 1934: 235–36, and 1974: 16–18), although his equation of si-bi with watru seems untenable (Wilcke 1976: 263–70). The meaning of this clause remains problematic and further study is needed.

131

• n. 56 (As 10/I/[ ]), Utul-Istar lends silver to Iddin-ilsu, s. of Iddin-Zababa, at the behest of Gimil-Marduk, s. of Sîn-nadin-sumi. b) Nabium-malik, the abi sabim, is mentioned in three documents: n. 66 (Sd 13/XI/4) he lends silver to {uzalum, the mas2-su-gid2-gid2, s. of Ilÿ-[ ]; ns. 62 (Sd 14/X/1) and 60 (Sd ?/XI/2) are also loans of silver from him to people whose names are not preserved. Finally there are two documents that can also be related to the state. These are loans against the obligation to perform agricultural work. In n. 69 (Si [ ]/ XII/4) Lustamar lends silver to Nidnusa, s. of Ana-waqar, and his wife Siqqujatum. In n. 76 (Ad 32/XI/27), †umma-ilum, di-kud, s. of Ilsu-bani, lends grain to Iddatum, s. of Belsunu. The Elders of Kar-†amas The elders of Kar-†amas together with Nakarum, the nu-banda3, and several other men sell a kislah-plot, property of the city, to Mar-ersetim, the son of †amas-rabi (n. 19, Si 25/XII/17). A similar transaction is recorded in VAS 18 17 (Si 26/IV/25), where the elders of Kar-†amas, Ilsuibni, the rabianum of the city, and other people also sell a kislah-plot, property of the city. Certain men listed before the elders appear in both documents, such is the case of Palu h -rigim s u and Bajum, children of Ibni-Adad, Iddin-Sî n, s. of Anum-p îs a, and M a r-er s etim, s. of Utu-ma s -zu. The list of witnesses of both documents also has certain men in common, for instance Ilsu-ibni, s. of Waqar-awÿlum, Marduk-nasir, s. †amas-nasir (father’s name broken in VAS 18 17), and Aplatum (father’s name broken in VAS 18 17). Similarly, the elders of Kar-†amas and some of these men rent a ˜eld in YOS 13 491 (Ae “u”/V/12). Buyers of Real Estate • Beltani, nadÿtum, d. of Sîn-magir, buys a ˜eld from Nÿsi-inÿsu, nadÿtum, d. of †¿-pîsa (n. 16, Si 2/X/W) • Gimil-Marduk, s. of Adad-musallim, buys an e 2-du 3-a property from Gimil-Marduk and

132

•

•

• •

•

CRITICAL REVIEW

Warad-Marduk, children of Utu-su-mu-un-dib (n. 14, As 8/X/24) Kur¿m, s. of Warad-Mamu, buys a ˜eld from †umum-libsi and Warad-ilisu, children of Sîniqÿsam (n. 15, As [ ]/VIII/10) Mar-ersetim, s. of †amas-rabi, buys a kislahplot from Nakarum, the nu-banda3 , a number of men, and the elders of Kar-†amas (n. 19, Si 25/XII/17) Rÿs-ilÿ, s. of †umum-lÿsi, buys a ˜eld from Amat†amas, d. of Marduk-musallim (n. 17, Ad 17/X/2) Taribum, N¿r-†amas, and Usi-bÿtum (no paternal ˜liation) buy a property from Lamassani, the nadÿtum, d. of the king (n. 18, Si 2/IX/W) Warad-serua(?), s. of Inbusa, buys a property from [PN] (n. 12, possibly Si)

Lessors • Aja-sirri(?) rents a rugbum to Belti-baniti for one year (n. 42, Si 7/IV/6) • Belessunu, d. f Awÿl-Ilabrat, rents a ˜eld to Etel†amas, s. of Izzÿ, for one year (n. 32, [ ]/I/23) • Etellum rents a rugbum to {upe for one year (n. 40, Si 3/VIII/7) • Etellum rents a rugbum to Mamu-pî-asbat for one year (n. 43, date lost) • Etellum rents a rugbum to Ibbi-†amas for one year (n. 38, undated) • Etel-pî-†amas rents a rugbum to Mannumbalum-†amas, s. of Iddinjatum, for one year (n. 39, Si 3/II/15) • Lamassani, nadÿtum, d. of Sîn-imguranni, rents a ˜eld to Ipqu-Nabium, the su-i, and Sînimguranni, s. of Bur-Sîn (n. 30, As 2/II/5) • Sîn-magir rents a ˜eld to Nanna-ma-an-sum2 and Sîn-isme’anni (n. 29, date lost) • †at-Aja, nadÿtum, d. of Imgur-Sîn, rents a ˜eld to Etellum and his brother Imgur-Sîn (n. 33, Si 3/[ ]/[ ]) • †umum-libsi, s. of Ilÿ-awÿlim, rents a ˜eld to Ilÿ-ibni, s. of Iddin-†amas, for one year (n. 31, As 11/V/8) • Taribum, s. of Ilÿ-awÿlim, and Elmesum, s. of Sîn-muballit, rent a ˜eld to Ilÿ-ibni, s. of Iddin†amas, for three years (n. 36, As 11/II/26)

Lenders of Various Commodities • Ardum, musen-du3 , lends grain (se-mus5) to Ilÿ-tukulti, s. of Ibba (n. 72, Ad 32/IX/22) • Atta, mas2-su-gid2-gid2, lends silver to Waradessesim, s. of Sîn-aham-iddinam (n. 59, Sd 12/ XI/9) • Buladatum lends silver to †amas-rabi, s. of Warad-Istar (n. 58, Sd 10/IX/1) • Gamillum, su-i, lends silver to Ipqatum, s. of Taribatum (n. 46, Ad 27/VIII/5) • Gimillum, s. of Sîn-nadin-sumi, lends sesame to Sîn-musallim, s. of Re’u-Aja (n. 82, date broken) • Ibni-Marduk, gala-mah of Babylon, lends grain to Warad-essesim, s. of Sîn-[ ], he will have to pay to the lender’s daughter in the karum of Sippar (n. 84, Sd 13/III/22) • Iltani, nadÿtum, d. of king Sîn-muballit, lends silver to †amas-ÿn-matim (n. 48, Si 4/VI/30) • Iltani, nadÿtum, d. of king Abi-esuh, lends silver to Ipqatum, s. of Taribatum (n. 49, Ad 22/?/6) • Iltani, nadÿtum, d. of king Abi-esuh, lends silver to †amas-bani, {abil-ahi, and Ipqatum, children of Taribatum (n. 53, Ad 25/XI/5) • Iltani, nadÿtum, d. of king Abi-esuh, lends grain to Rÿs-†ubula, s. of †amas-ilisu (n. 78, Ad 30/ XII/22) • Jataratum lends grain to Awÿl-d[ ] (n. 80, date broken) • Lamassani, nadÿtum, d. of {abil-ahi, lends silver to Awÿl-Sîn, s. of Nanna-ma-an-sum 2 (n. 55, As 5/XI/20) • Marduk-nasir, ugula su-i, lends oil(?) to IbniAmurrum, s. of Warad-ilisu at the behest of [PN] (n. 85, Sd 13?/VIII/10) • Marduk-nasir, ugula su-i, lends silver to †amasremeni, at the behest of Sîn-nasir (n. 61, date not preserved, possibly Sd 18) • Iskur-ma-an-sum2, ugula igi-du, lends silver to Gimillum, s. of Adad-musallim, at the behest of Hummurum, s. of Marduk-musallim (n. 68, Sd 8 or 28/IV/2) • N¿r-Kabta, s. of the sanga of †amas, lends silver to Ibbija, s. of N¿r-†amas, at the behest of Beja, s. of †amas-nasir (n. 57, As 17+a/VI/[ ]) • N¿r-†amas lends silver to Sîn-eribam, s. of Kamalum(?) (n. 67, Si 9?/V/10)

CRITICAL REVIEW

• N¿r-†amas lends silver to Sîn-aham-id[dinam], s. of N¿r-Ishara (n. 65, mu gibil/II/14) • N¿r-†amas lends grain to Gimil-[ ] (n. 83, unclear/I/11) • Sîn-isme’anni, s. of Dugganura (or GN?), lends grain and silver to Belsunu, s. of N¿r-ilisu (n. 77, Ad 20/V/1) • Sîn-nadin-sumi, s. of Ibni-Marduk, lends silver to †amas-bani and Taribat(?)-Sîn, children of Taribum (n. 54, Ad 28/IV/20) • Summu-Amnanum lends silver to Ruttum (n. 64, Ad 17?/XII/1) • Marduk-muballit, di-kud, s. of †umma-ilum, lends silver to Ilÿ-iqÿsam, s. of Belsunu, at the behest of Ipqu-Annunÿtum, s. of Taribum (n. 45, Ad 30/V/1) Dating Since the author does not include a chronological arrangement of the documents, the following list may help trace dates. The tablets are from the reigns of: • Samsu-iluna: n. 20 (Si 1/I/25), n. 114 (Si 1?/I/20), n. 128 (Si 1/I/21), n. 102 (Si 1?/X/20+), n. 110 (Si 1?/XII/W), n. 100 (Si 2/I/W), n. 105 (Si 2/III/ 18), n. 94 (Si 2?/VIII?/2 or 3), n. 18 (Si 2/IX/W), n. 16 (Si 2/X/W), n. 33 (Si 3/[ ]/[ ]), n. 39 (Si 3/II/ 15), n. 34 (Si 3/VI/21), ns. 40–41 (Si 3/VII/7), n. 101 (Si 3/XII/10), n. 48 (Si 4/VI/30), n. 25 (Si 5/II/27?), n. 126 (Si 5/VI/25), n. 130 (Si 5?/VI/ 30), n. 111 (Si 6/V/4), n. 42 (Si 7/VI/6), n. 74 (Si 7/VIII/6), n. 127 (Si 7/VIII/13), n. 91 (Si 7/VIII/ [ ]), n. 67 (Si 9?/VI/10), n. 5 (Si 30/V/9), n. 19 (Si 25/XII/17), n. 103 (Si 26/X/27), n. 2 (Si 35?/IX/ 5), n. 4 (Si oath, undated), n. 69 (Si [ ]/XII/4), n. 23 (Si, rest lost), and possibly ns. 8+9 (lost), and n. 12 (lost) • Abi-esuh: n. 21 (Ae “x”/VI/20) • Ammi-ditana: n. 129 (Ad 1/VI/1), n. 6 (Ad 1/[ ]/ 21), n. 115 (Ad 3/X/12), n. 1 (Ad 3/X/13), n. 96 (Ad 3/[ ]/10), n. 97 (Ad 5/II/10), n. 3 (Ad 8?/III/ 24), n. 44 (Ad 12/III/24), n. 108 (Ad 13/V/10), n. 17 (Ad 17/X/2), n. 113 (Ad 19/VI/26), n. 77 (Ad 20/V/1), n. 70 (Ad 22/IV/14?), n. 49 (Ad 22/ ?/26), n. 50 (Ad 23/IV/20), n. 52 (Ad 25/IV/25), n. 53 (Ad 25/XI/5), n. 51 (Ad 26/VI/24), n. 92

133

(Ad 26/VI/28), n. 46 (Ad 27/VIII/5), n. 54 (Ad 28/IV/20), n. 75 (Ad 28/XI/9), n. 63 (Ad 28/XII/ 5), n. 73 (Ad 28/XII/15), n. 47 (Ad 29/IX/6), n. 79 (Ad 29/IX/10), n. 107 (Ad 29/IX/24), n. 45 (Ad 30/V/1), n. 99 (Ad 30/XI/25), n. 78 (Ad 30/XII/ 22), n. 106 (Ad 31/I/12), n. 72 (Ad 32/IX/22), n. 76 (Ad 32/XI/27), n. 71 (Ad 35/XI/7), n. 86 (Ad [ ]/VI/[ ]), n. 118 (Ad [ ]/XI/10), and possibly ns. 64 (Ad 17?/XII/1), and 81 (broken) • Ammi-saduqa: n. 112 (As 1/[ ]/[ ]), n. 30 (As 2/ II/5), n. 55 (As 5/XI/20), n. 22 (As 8/IV/22 ?), n. 14 (As 8/X/24?), n. 56 (As 10/I/[ ]), n. 36 (As 11/II/26), n. 31 (As 11/V/8), n. 90 (As 16/V/[ ]), n. 57 (As 17b+/VI/[ ]), n. 15 (As oath [ ]/VIII/10) • Samsu-ditana: n. 11 (Sd 3?/VIII/20), n. 95 (Sd 10/VI/5?), n. 58 (Sd 10/IX/1), n. 117 (Sd 12/X/1), n. 59 (Sd 12/XI/9), n. 84 (Sd 13/III/22), n. 66 (Sd 13/XI/4), n. 85 (Sd 13?/VIII/10), n. 62 (Sd 14/X/1), n. 60 (Sd 11, 13, 24 or 24/XI/2+x), n. 68 (Sd 8 or 28/IV/2), n. 93 (Sd [ ]/XII/5), n. 116 (Sd [ ]/V?/[ ]), n. 125 (Sd [ ]/VII?/1), and possibly n. 61 (lost) • No date, date not preserved, or incomplete: ns. 7, 10, 13, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 35, 37, 38, 43, 65, 80, 82, 83, 87, 88, 89, 98, 104, 109, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 131, and 132 List of Personal Names: Addenda et Corrigenda • Abum-waqar 107: 4 (f. of Sîn-remeni), not listed • Amat-Amurrum 99: 4, not listed • Apil-Amurrum 1: 14.19 (f. of Warad-Sîn), not listed • Bajum 19: 11 (s. of Ibni-Adad, b. of Paluhrigimsu), not listed • Belanum 55: 11 (f. of Sîn-nadin-sumi), not listed • Belibanu 32: 3 (d. of Awÿl-Ilabrat), to be read instead Belessunu (she is attested in VAS 9 157) • Ibni-Adad 19: 11, instead of “(V. von PN(?))” read (f. of [Pa]luh-rigimsu and Bajum). They are recorded in a similar context in VAS 18 17: 11–12. • Iddin-†amas appears under Iddin-Sîn (p. 38) • Ilÿ-iddinam 26: 2 should be read Ilima-ili • Ilÿ-awÿlim 36: 18 (f. of †umum-libsi), not listed

134

CRITICAL REVIEW

• Ilÿ-iqÿsam 45:4, add (s. of Belsunu) • Ilÿ-kÿma-abija 50: 7 is not the father of †amasbani, but the son of Taribum, add (b. of †amasbani, {abil-ahi, and Ipqatum) • Ilÿ-ma(j)a 39: 15, son of Ilÿ-rabi, I suggest the reading Ilÿ-sukkal instead of Ilÿ-ma(j)a, as appears in 40: 10. • Ilsu-ibni 47: 7 instead of us-x read ra 2 .gaba, Ilsu-ibni 47: 7 attested in 79: 13 and 99: 1. Ilsu-ibni 71: 3 sanga, add dUtu • Ipqatum 50: 9, add (b. of †amas-bani and Ilÿkÿma-abija) • Ipqu-Ningal 120: 8, add (f. of Iddin-Kabti) • Mamu-pî-asbat 43:3, add (d. [dumu]-munus Saniq-qabe-†amas) • Mar-ersetim 101: 9, add (f. of Warad-Sîn) Mar-ersetim 105: 1, the father is not Warad-Sîn, Mar-ersetim 105: 1, but reading not sure • Nidnat-†amas 12: 15u, to be read instead Marersetim, s. of Utu-mas-zu. He and other men attested in this document appear together in VAS 18 17. • Paluh-rigimsu 19: 11 (s. of Ibni-Adad, b. of Bajum), not listed

• Saniq-qabe-†amas 43:3, add (f. of Mamu-pîasbat) • Sîn-iqÿsam 15: 19 (sipa, f. of Eristi-Aja, nadÿSîn-iqÿsam 15: 19 tum), not listed Sîn-iqÿsam 15: 25 (f. of †umum-libsi and Sîn-iqÿsam 15: 19 Warad-ilisu) • Sîn-imguranni 30:8 (f. of Lamassani), not listed • Sîn-isme’anni 49: 12 (f. of Kubbutum), not listed • Sîn-musallim 1: 35 (di-kud) should be read Sîn-nadin-sumi (di-kud) • Sîn-nadin-sumi 55: 10 (s. of Belanum), not listed • Sîn-nasir 61: 5, not listed • †amas-bani 50: 7 is not the son of Ilÿ-kÿmaabija but the son of Taribum, add (b. of Ilÿkÿma-abija, {abil-ahi, and Ipqatum) • †umum-libsi 31: 4, add (s. of Ilÿ-awÿlim) • Taribum 70: 10 (f. of †amas-bani, Ilÿ-kÿma-abija, and Ipqatum), not listed • Taribusa 99: 4, not listed • Warad-Nabium 36: 21 (s. of Maqtum-lizziz), not listed

References Farber, H. 1978 A price and Wage Study for Northern Babylonia during the Old Babylonian Period. JESHO 21: 1–51. Goddeeris, A. 2002 Economy and Society in Northern Babylonia in the Early Old Babylonian Period (ca. 2000– 1800 BC). Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 109. Leuven: Peeters. Kalla, G. 1999 Die Geschichte der Entdeckung der altbabylonischen Sippar-Archive. ZA 89: 201–26. San Nicolò, M. 1934 Draufgeld. RlA 2: 235–36.

1974 Die Schlussklauseln der altbabylonischen Kauf-und Tauschverträge. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Barkaufes. München: C. H. Beck. Stol, M. 1987 Prinzessin Iltani. SEL 4: 3–7. Wilcke, C. 1976 Zu den spat-altbabylonischen Kaufverträgen aus Nordbabylonien. WO 8/2: 254–85. Yoˆee, N. 1977 The Economic Role of the Crown in the Old Babylonian Period. Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 5. Malibu: Undena.